In a significant verdict on a long-pending case, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has upheld the findings of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) against the Pakistan Poultry Association (PPA) for cartelization. The tribunal, however, reduced the financial penalty imposed on the association by half.
The Tribunal's Final Verdict
The CAT confirmed the CCP's original order that found the PPA and its members guilty of violating competition laws. The tribunal reduced the penalty from the original Rs50 million to Rs25 million. It directed the association to deposit the amount within 15 days of receiving the official order, according to a release issued on Monday.
A Case Rooted in 2010
The legal saga began in 2010 when the CCP imposed a fine of Rs50 million on the Pakistan Poultry Association. The commission found the association and its members guilty of forming a cartel and illegally colluding to fix prices of poultry products. This action was deemed a clear breach of Section 4 of the Competition Act, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements.
This initial penalty triggered extensive legal battles, leading to years of proceedings focused on cartelization within Pakistan's vital poultry sector.
Why the Penalty Was Reduced
During the recent hearing, the PPA's counsel did not contest the appeal's outcome being aligned with a 2022 Supreme Court judgment in a similar case. In that ruling, the apex court had adopted a more lenient stance and reduced the imposed penalty.
Relying on this precedent and with the consent of the appellant (PPA), the Appellate Tribunal decided to slash the total penalty. The tribunal noted that the facts of the poultry association's appeal were substantially similar to those of the Supreme Court case. Consequently, it disposed of the appeal without a fresh examination of the merits of the case.
This ruling brings a measure of closure to a protracted legal dispute that highlighted issues of price-fixing and anti-competitive behavior in a key agricultural industry. The decision underscores the role of regulatory bodies in enforcing fair market practices while also demonstrating how higher court precedents can influence final penalties.
