Competition in a market may be limited to types other than those mentioned above. For example, there may be other types of agreements between competitors, such as pricing policies or recommendations, joint buying or selling, the establishment of technical or design standards, and an agreement for the exchange of business information. CCCS will act in cases where competition is appreciably affected, i.e. where competition is seriously affected. In the case of a pricing policy or recommendation, CCCS has found that recommended rates and pricing policies, whether mandatory or voluntary, are generally detrimental to competition and encourages all companies to set their prices independently. The Commission also stated that such a distribution structure allowed OEMs to obtain operating prices from their related consumers, improve the operating margin of sales of automotive components compared to the automobiles themselves and have long-term anti-competitive structural effects on the Indian automotive market. The Commission considered that the contested agreements were contrary to Section 3 of the Law and stated that the network of such agreements allowed OEMs to become monopolistic players on aftermarkets for their vehicle model, to create barriers to market entry and to eliminate competition from independent service providers. Anti-competitive agreements would be a particularly serious type of anti-competitive agreement. Agreements are generally aimed at determining prices, manipulating tenders, allocating markets or limiting production. As a result, cartels have little or no incentive to lower prices or offer better quality goods or services. According to economic studies, cartels are on average 30 percent higher. There are four main types of cartels: 2 main prohibitions of competition law”, legislation, court decisions and regulations specifically aimed at preventing anti-competitive business practices, abuse of market power and anti-competitive mergers.
It generally focuses on the control of restrictive business practices (such as anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant position) and anti-competitive mergers and may also contain provisions on unfair commercial practices” (ASEAN Regional Guidelines on Competition Policy, 2010, §) The concept of price fixing in resale was adopted by the Commission in the case of Enterprise Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. re Hyundai Motor Ind. ia Limited4. In this case, the informant had claimed that, in accordance with the agreement with Hyundai, dealers were required to purchase all car parts and accessories only from Hyundai or through their sellers. . . .