1. The present information has been filed by Shri Shailesh Kumar ('the informant') under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against M/s Tata Chemicals Limited ('the opposite party No. 1'/TCL), M/s DCW Limited ('the opposite party No. 2'/DCW), M/s Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited ('the opposite party No. 3'/GHCL), M/s Nirma Limited ('the opposite party No. 4'/Nirma) and M/s Saurashtra Chemical Limited (the opposite party No. 5'/SCL) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 3 of the Act.

2. Shorn of details, facts, as stated in the information, may be briefly noted:

2.1 The informant alleged cartelization by the aforesaid enterprises in the market of manufacturing and sale of soda ash in India under the umbrella of Alkali Manufacturers Association of India (AMAI).

2.2 It was alleged that the opposite parties, under the aegis of AMAI, formed a cartel with a view to manipulate prices and volume of production of soda ash in India by sharing information relating to data on production, installed capacity, capacity utilization, capacity expansions including data on demand and supply, imports, exports, international prices in violation of the provisions contained in section 3 of the Act.

2.3 It was averred that the said information was shared by the opposite parties through the website of AMAI (www.ama-india.org) and that the contents of the said website were password protected and available only to the members of AMAI.

2.4 It was further alleged that whenever any consumer of soda ash invited quotation for procurement, all the opposite parties quoted either the same price or a price with little difference from each other. Similar revision in price was made in quotations by the opposite parties when called for around the same time without any viable justification. The informant also alleged that change in the price of soda ash by the opposite parties did not correspond with increase in the costs.

2.5 It is the case of the informant that cartel like phenomenon could be seen from the fact that production, sales, capacity utilization and market share of the manufacturers were showing upward trend and that they were making super normal profits. The informant has alleged that there existed an understanding among the opposite parties to reduce competition among them which emanated from exchange of information under the aegis of AMAI.

2.6 The informant also submitted that the opposite parties had manipulated information while approaching the Director General (DG Safeguards) and the Director General of Anti-Dumping (DGAD) for imposition of safeguards duty and anti-dumping duty. On account of such manipulation, the claim of the opposite parties was accepted by the DG Safeguards resulting into imposition of safeguards duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem on import of soda ash from China from 05.11.2009 till 19.04.2010, which was reduced to 16% from 20.04.2010 to 19.04.2011 and 14% from 20.04.2011 till 19.04.2012. The informant has also stated that AMAI was manipulating the data before DGAD, with the aim of ensuring that imports of soda ash in Indian market did not threaten its ability to control soda ash prices in India. It has been submitted that the above said duties were limiting the supply of soda ash in the Indian market and hindering fair price competition.

2.7 In support of its allegations, the informant has enclosed snap shots of the web site of AMAI and the opposite parties, copies of the quotes and revised quotes sent by the opposite parties to Source 1, a report titled 'Working Group on Indian Chemical Industry' of the Planning Commission, a research paper titled 'Indian Soda Ash Industry: Recent Developments and Industry Outlook' of Care Analysis & Research Limited, copies of the petitions filed before DGAD and DG Safeguards, copies of the findings of DGAD and DG Safeguards at various stages, Customs Notifications dated 05.11.2009 and 28.06.2010.

3. The matter was considered by the Commission in its or