Displaying items by tag: appeal

Philippines: Big Boss Cement has appealed against a decision by the Board of Investment (BOI) denying its application for registration because it lacked ‘proof of concept’. Big Boss’ president Gilbert Cruz said that the new cement company’s application was turned down in 2017 because it was not producing clinker, according to the Manila Bulletin newspaper. It plans to open a cement grinding plant in Pampanga in March 2018.

Italy: Appeals by Italian cement producers to the judiciary of Lazio against fines imposed by the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) has been deferred to June 2018. Italcementi, Buzzi Unicem, Colacem, Cementir, Sacci, Holcim, Cementirossi, Barbetti, Cementeria di Monselice, Cementizillo, Calme, Moccia, TSC and the Italian Cement Association (AITEC) were penalised more than Euro184m in July 2017 for allegedly coordinating sales prices and agreeing market share from June 2011 to January 2016, according to the ANSA news agency. The majority of the fine was levied on Italcementi and Buzzi Unicem at around Euro84m and Euro60m respectively. Itacementi started appealing against the sanctions in August 2017.

Croatia: HeidelbergCement has appealed against an investigation by the European Commission into the proposed joint purchase with Germany’s Schwenk Zement of Cemex Croatia. The cement producer asserts that by considering Schwenk and itself rather than Duna-Dráva Cement (DDC), a subsidiary that both companies own equally, the commission has given the transaction a ‘Union dimension,’ according to the Official Journal of the European Union. Although DDC is based in Hungary, within the European Union (EU), it imports cement into Croatia (in the EU) from Bosnia & Herzegovina, a country outside of the union. The appeal was made in late December 2016 but only reported in late February 2017.

The European Commission revealed that it was investigating the proposed acquisition of Cemex Croatia by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk in October 2016. The commission was concerned that the transaction would merge the biggest producer in the area with the biggest importer, potentially reducing local competition.

India: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found seven cement companies guilty of bid rigging and cartelisation and imposed a total fine of nearly US$30m on them. The accused companies are Shree Cement, UltraTech Cement, Jaiprakash Associates, JK Cement, Ambuja Cements, ACC and JK Lakshmi Cement, according to the Times of India. The fines are based on 0.3% of each company’s average turnover for three financial years. Each company has also been ordered to cease and desist such behaviour.

The ruling relates to a tender floated by a Haryana state procurement agency in 2012 that the CCI started investigating in 2014. Evidence cited in the CCI’s order includes text messages and phone calls made between officials of the companies.

UltraTech Cement and Shree Cement have issued statements saying that they will appeal against the fine.

India: The Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) has rejected an appeal by Binani Cement to waive paying a 10% deposit of a US$25m fine that was given to it by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for cartel-like behaviour. COMPAT said that the cement producer had failed to add any further information to the situation or pointed out any errors in the procedure, according to the Press Trust of India. In August 2016 the CCI imposed fines of nearly US$1bn on cement producers including ACC, ACL, Binani, Century, India Cements, JK Cement, Lafarge, Ramco, UltraTech, Jaiprakash Associates and the Cement Manufacturers Association for alleged cartelisation activity.

In November 2016, the COMPAT delayed the CCI condition that the cement producers deposit 10% of the fine. However, Binani Cement requested to waive the deposit on grounds of severe financial hardship. Binani Cement now potentially faces interest charges on top of the deposit as its appeal was dismissed.

India: ACC has revealed that an appeal by cement producers to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) against a fine imposed by the Competition Commission of India in August 2016 for alleged cartel activity has succeeded in negotiating the terms of the penalty. The COMPAT has ordered that the producers deposit 10% of the US$1bn fine in a similar manner to that of a fine levied in 2012. That fine was eventually dropped in 2014 with the CCI citing a lack of evidence.

Fines totalling US$1bn were levied on ACC, ACL, Binani, Century, India Cements, JK Cement, Lafarge, Ramco, UltraTech, Jaiprakash Associates and the Cement Manufacturers Association in late August 2016 for alleged cartelisation activity.

Pakistan: Fecto Cement has appealed to the Islamabad High Court to allow it to continue mining in the Margalla Hills. In August 2016 it had its mining lease cancelled by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and a fine was issued. This followed an order by the Supreme Court in March 2015 to stop all development and stone crushing activities, according to the Dawn newspaper. In 2013 the Islamabad Capital Territory issued a mining lease that allowed Fecto Cement to carry out stone crushing activities in the area until 2030.

Australia: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has filed an appeal against a US$12.6m fine against Cement Australia, which it views is too low. On 16 May 2016 a Federal Court published orders imposing a penalty of US$13.7m on the cement producer. One order was then set aside, reducing the fine to US$12.6m. However, the ACCC contends that a penalty of over US$66m is more appropriate for the breaches of Australia’s competition legislation.

“The ACCC will argue to the Full Court that the penalties imposed on Cement Australia are manifestly inadequate, and not of appropriate deterrent value,” said ACCC Chairman Rod Sims. He added that suitable financial penalties were considered ‘essential’ as a deterrent to anti-competitive conduct and to prevent businesses viewing such behaviour as an acceptable cost of doing business.

The proceedings relate to contracts that were entered into by Cement Australia companies between 2002 and 2006 with four power stations in South East Queensland, to acquire fly ash. The court found numerous contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It also fined Christopher White, a manager in the Cement Australia fly ash business during the relevant period, a penalty of US$14,700 for his involvement in making the contravening contracts with the operator of the Swanbank power station in 2005.