UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

Dehradun
COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES

ROCKEFELLERS ANTI-TRUST CASE AND HISTORY OF ANTITRUST

COMPETITION LAW ASSIGNMENT - I

In the partial fulfillment of continuous evaluation

Submitted to : Mr. Sampath Kumar Faculty (B) COLS UPES

Submitted By : Rajarshi Mukherjee B.A., LL.B. IX Semester R450209063

John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937), founder of the Standard Oil Company, became one of the worlds wealthiest men and a major philanthropist. Born into modest circumstances in upstate New York, he entered the then-fledgling oil business in 1863 by investing in a Cleveland, Ohio, refinery. In 1870, he established Standard Oil, which by the early 1880s controlled some 90 percent of U.S. refineries and pipelines. Critics accused Rockefeller of engaging in unethical practices, such as predatory pricing and colluding with railroads to eliminate his competitors, in order to gain a monopoly in the industry. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court found Standard Oil in violation of anti-trust laws and ordered it to dissolve. During his life Rockefeller donated more than $500 million to various philanthropic causes.

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER: STANDARD OIL

In 1865, Rockefeller borrowed money to buy out some of his partners and take control of the refinery, which had become the largest in Cleveland. Over the next few years, he acquired new partners and expanded his business interests in the growing oil industry. At the time, kerosene, derived from petroleum and used in lamps, was becoming an economic staple. In 1870, Rockefeller formed the Standard Oil Company of Ohio, along with his younger brother William (1841-1922), Henry Flagler (1830-1913) and a group of other men. John Rockefeller was its president and largest shareholder.1 Standard Oil gained a monopoly in the oil industry by buying rival refineries and developing companies for distributing and marketing its products around the globe. In 1882, these various companies were combined into the Standard Oil Trust, which would control some 90 percent of the nations refineries and pipelines. In order to exploit economies of scale, Standard Oil did everything from build its own oil barrels to employ scientists to figure out new uses for petroleum by-products. Rockefellers enormous wealth and success made him a target of muckraking journalists, reform politicians and others who viewed him as a symbol of corporate greed and criticized the methods with which hed built his empire. As The New York Times reported in 1937: He was accused of crushing out competition, getting rich on rebates from railroads, bribing men to spy on competing companies, of making secret agreements, of coercing rivals to join the Standard Oil Company under threat of being forced out of business, building up enormous fortunes on the ruins of other men, and so on. In 1890, the U.S. Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, the first federal legislation prohibiting trusts and combinations that restrained trade. Two years later, the Ohio Supreme Court dissolved the Standard Oil Trust; however, the businesses within the trust soon became part of Standard Oil of New Jersey, which functioned as a holding company. In 1911, after years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Standard Oil of New Jersey was in violation of antitrust laws and forced it to dismantle (it was broken up into more than 30 individual companies).

http://www.history.com/topics/john-d-rockefeller

EARLY YEARS OF STANDARD OIL

In 1870 Rockefeller incorporated Standard Oil in Ohio. In the early years, John D. Rockefeller dominated the combine; he was the single most important figure in shaping the new oil industry. He quickly distributed power and the tasks of policy formation to a system of committees, but always remained the largest shareholder. Authority was centralized in the company's main office in Cleveland, but decisions in the office were made in a cooperative way. In 1872, Rockefeller joined the South Improvement Company which would have allowed him to receive rebates for shipping and receive drawbacks on oil his competitors shipped. But when this deal became known, competitors convinced the Pennsylvania Legislature to revoke South Improvement's charter. No oil was ever shipped under this arrangement. Standard's actions and secret transport deals helped its kerosene price to drop from 58 to 26 cents from 1865 to 1870. Competitors disliked the company's business practices, but consumers liked the lower prices. Standard Oil, being formed well before the discovery of the Spindle top oil field and a demand for oil other than for heat and light, was well placed to control the growth of the oil business. The company was perceived to own and control all aspects of the trade. In 1885, Standard Oil of Ohio moved its headquarters from Cleveland to its permanent headquarters at 26 Broadway in New York City. Concurrently, the trustees of Standard Oil of Ohio chartered the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (SOCNJ) to take advantages of New Jersey's more lenient corporate stock ownership laws. Also in 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act the source of all American antimonopoly laws. The law forbade every contract, scheme, deal, or conspiracy to restrain trade, though the phrase "restraint of trade" remained subjective. The Standard Oil group quickly attracted attention from antitrust authorities leading to a lawsuit filed by Ohio Attorney General David K. Watson. From 1882 to 1906, Standard paid out $548,436,000 in dividends at 65.4% payout ratio. The total net earnings from 1882 to 1906 amounted to $838,783,800, exceeding the dividends by $290,347,800, which was used for plant expansions. In 1897, John Rockefeller retired from the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, the holding company of the group, but remained president and a major shareholder. Vice-president John Dustin Archbold took a large part in the running of the firm. At the same time, state and federal laws sought to counter this development with "antitrust" laws. In 1911, the US Justice Department sued the group under the federal antitrust law and ordered its breakup into 34 companies. Standard Oil's market position was initially established through an emphasis on efficiency and responsibility. While most companies dumped gasoline in rivers (this was before the automobile was popular), Standard used it to fuel its machines. While other companies' refineries piled mountains of heavy waste, Rockefeller found ways to sell it. For example, Standard created the first synthetic competitor for beeswax and bought the company that invented and produced Vaseline, the Chesebrough Manufacturing Company, which was a Standard company only from 1908 until 1911.

The Standard Oil Trust was controlled by a small group of families. Rockefeller stated in 1910: "I think it is true that the Pratt family, the Payne-Whitney family (which were one, as all the stock came from Colonel Payne), the Harkness-Flagler family (which came into the Company together) and the Rockefeller family controlled a majority of the stock during all the history of the Company up to the present time". These families reinvested most of the dividends in other industries, especially railroads. They also invested heavily in the gas and the electric lighting business (including the giant Consolidated Gas Company of New York City). They made large purchases of stock in US Steel, Amalgamated Copper, and even Corn Products Refining Company. Standard Oil's production increased so rapidly it soon exceeded US demand and the company began viewing export markets. In the 1890s, Standard Oil began marketing kerosene to China's large population of close to 400 million as lamp fuel. For its Chinese trademark and brand Standard Oil adopted the name Mei Foo, translating roughly as beautiful and trustworthy or beautiful confidence. Mei Foo also became the name of the tin lamp that Standard Oil produced and gave away or sold cheaply to Chinese farmers, encouraging them to switch from vegetable oil to kerosene. Response was positive, sales boomed and China became Standard Oil's largest market in Asia. Prior to Pearl Harbor, Stanvac was the largest single US investment in SE Asia.

MONOPOLY CHARGES AND ANTI-TRUST LITIGATION (STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES)
By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States. The state of Ohio successfully sued Standard, compelling the dissolution of the trust in 1892. But Standard simply separated Standard Oil of Ohio and kept control of it. Eventually, the state of New Jersey changed its incorporation laws to allow a company to hold shares in other companies in any state. So, in 1899, the Standard Oil Trust, based at 26 Broadway in New York, was legally reborn as a holding company, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (SOCNJ), which held stock in 41 other companies, which controlled other companies, which in turn controlled yet other companies. This conglomerate was seen by the public as all-pervasive, controlled by a select group of directors, and completely unaccountable. In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55% was exported around the world. After 1900 it did not try to force competitors out of business by underpricing them. The federal Commissioner of Corporations studied Standard's operations from the period of 1904 to 1906 and concluded that "beyond question... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Company in the refining industry was due to unfair practicesto abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products". Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70% by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64% by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up and at least 147 refining companies were competing with

Standard including Gulf, Texaco, and Shell. It did not try to monopolize the exploration and pumping of oil (its share in 1911 was 11%). In 1909, the US Department of Justice sued Standard under federal anti-trust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, for sustaining a monopoly and restraining interstate commerce by: "Rebates, preferences, and other discriminatory practices in favor of the combination by railroad companies; restraint and monopolization by control of pipe lines, and unfair practices against competing pipe lines; contracts with competitors in restraint of trade; unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition; [and] espionage of the business of competitors, the operation of bogus independent companies, and payment of rebates on oil, with the like intent." The lawsuit argued that Standard's monopolistic practices had taken place over the preceding four years: "The general result of the investigation has been to disclose the existence of numerous and flagrant discriminations by the railroads in behalf of the Standard Oil Company and its affiliated corporations. With comparatively few exceptions, mainly of other large concerns in California, the Standard has been the sole beneficiary of such discriminations. In almost every section of the country that company has been found to enjoy some unfair advantages over its competitors, and some of these discriminations affect enormous areas." The government identified four illegal patterns: 1) secret and semi-secret railroad rates; (2) discriminations in the open arrangement of rates; (3) discriminations in classification and rules of shipment; (4) discriminations in the treatment of private tank cars. The government alleged: "Almost everywhere the rates from the shipping points used exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the Standard are relatively lower than the rates from the shipping points of its competitors. Rates have been made low to let the Standard into markets, or they have been made high to keep its competitors out of markets. Trifling differences in distances are made an excuse for large differences in rates favorable to the Standard Oil Company, while large differences in distances are ignored where they are against the Standard. Sometimes connecting roads prorate on oil that is, make through rates which are lower than the combination of local rates; sometimes they refuse to prorate; but in either case the result of their policy is to favor the Standard Oil Company. Different methods are used in different places and under different conditions, but the net result is that from Maine to California the general arrangement of open rates on petroleum oil is such as to give the Standard an unreasonable advantage over its competitors" The government said that Standard raised prices to its monopolistic customers but lowered them to hurt competitors, often disguising its illegal actions by using bogus supposedly independent companies it controlled. "The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Company charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and

which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher." On May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an "unreasonable" monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act, Section II. It ordered Standard to break up into 90 independent companies with different boards of directors, the biggest two of the companies were Standard Oil of New Jersey (which became Exxon) and Standard Oil of New York (which became Mobil). Standard's president, John D. Rockefeller, had long since retired from any management role. But, as he owned a quarter of the shares of the resultant companies, and those share values mostly doubled, he emerged from the dissolution as the richest man in the world. The dissolution had actually propelled Rockefeller's personal wealth.

BREAKUP
By 1911, with public outcry at a climax, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, that Standard Oil must be dissolved under the Sherman Antitrust Act and split into 33 companies. Two of these companies were Jersey Standard ("Standard Oil Company of New Jersey"), which eventually became Exxon, and Socony ("Standard Oil Company of New York"), which eventually became Mobil. Over the next few decades, both companies grew significantly. Jersey Standard, led by Walter C. Teagle, became the largest oil producer in the world. It acquired a 50 percent share in Humble Oil & Refining Co., a Texas oil producer. Socony purchased a 45 percent interest in Magnolia Petroleum Co., a major refiner, marketer and pipeline transporter. In 1931, Socony merged with Vacuum Oil Company, an industry pioneer dating back to 1866, and a growing Standard Oil spin-off in its own right. In the Asia-Pacific region, Jersey Standard had oil production and refineries in Indonesia but no marketing network. Socony-Vacuum had Asian marketing outlets supplied remotely from California. In 1933, Jersey Standard and Socony-Vacuum merged their interests in the region into a 5050 joint venture. Standard-Vacuum Oil Co., or "Stanvac", operated in 50 countries, from East Africa to New Zealand, before it was dissolved in 1962. Other Standard Oil breakup companies include "Standard Oil of Ohio" which became SOHIO, "Standard Oil of Indiana" which became Amoco after other mergers and a name change in the 1980s, "Standard Oil of California" became the Chevron Corporation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1911 that antitrust law required Standard Oil to be broken into smaller, independent companies. Among the "baby Standards" that still exist areExxonMobil and Chevron. Some have speculated that if not for that court ruling, Standard Oil could have possibly been worth more than $1 trillion today. Whether the breakup of Standard Oil was beneficial is a matter of some controversy. Some economists believe that Standard Oil was not a monopoly, and also argue that the intense free market competition resulted in cheaper oil prices and more diverse petroleum products; in 1890, Rep. William Mason, arguing in favor of the Sherman Antitrust Act, said: "trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if

the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to people of this country by the trustswhich have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprise". The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits the restraint of trade. Defenders of Standard Oil insist that the company did not restrain trade; they were simply superior competitors. The federal courts ruled otherwise. Some economic historians have observed that Standard Oil was in the process of losing its monopoly at the time of its breakup in 1911. Although Standard had 90% of American refining capacity in 1880, by 1911 that had shrunk to between 60 and 65%, due to the expansion in capacity by competitors. Numerous regional competitors (such as Pure Oilin the East, Texaco and Gulf Oil in the Gulf Coast, Cities Service and Sun in the Midcontinent, Union in California, and Shell overseas) had organized themselves into competitive vertically integrated oil companies, the industry structure pioneered years earlier by Standard itself. In addition, demand for petroleum products was increasing more rapidly than the ability of Standard to expand. The result was that although in 1911 Standard still controlled most production in the older US regions of the Appalachian Basin (78% share, down from 92% in 1880), Lima-Indiana (90%, down from 95% in 1906), and the Illinois Basin (83%, down from 100% in 1906), its share was much lower in the rapidly expanding new regions that would dominate US oil production in the 20th century. In 1911 Standard controlled only 44% of production in the Midcontinent, 29% in California, and 10% on the Gulf Coast. Some analysts argue that the breakup was beneficial to consumers in the long run, and no one has ever proposed that Standard Oil be reassembled in pre-1911 form. ExxonMobil, however, does represent a substantial part of the original company2.

SUCCESSOR COMPANIES
The successor companies from Standard Oil's breakup form the core of today's US oil industry. (Several of these companies were considered among the Seven Sisters who dominated the industry worldwide for much of the 20th century.) They include: Standard Oil of New Jersey (SONJ) - or Esso (S.O.) renamed Exxon, now part of ExxonMobil. Standard Trust companies Carter Oil, Imperial Oil (Canada), and Standard of Louisiana were kept as part of Standard Oil of New Jersey after the breakup. Standard Oil of New York or Socony, merged with Vacuum renamed Mobil, now part of ExxonMobil. Standard Oil of California or Socal renamed Chevron, became ChevronTexaco, but returned to Chevron. Standard Oil of Indiana - or Stanolind, renamed Amoco (American Oil Co.) now part of BP. Standard's Atlantic and the independent company Richfield merged to form Atlantic Richfield or ARCO, recently part of BP but has since been sold to a Japanese company. Atlantic operations were spun off and bought by Sunoco.
2

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/rockefellers-trial/

 Standard Oil of Kentucky or Kyso was acquired by Standard Oil of California currently Chevron. Standard Oil of Ohio or Sohio, acquired by BP in 1987. The Ohio Oil Company or The Ohio, and marketed gasoline under the Marathon name. The company is now known as Marathon Petroleum, and was often a rival with the instate Standard spinoff, Sohio. Other Standard Oil spin-offs: Standard Oil of Iowa pre-1911 became Standard Oil of California. Standard Oil of Minnesota pre-1911 bought by Standard Oil of Indiana. Standard Oil of Illinois - pre-1911 - bought by Standard Oil of Indiana. Standard Oil of Kansas refining only, eventually bought by Indiana Standard. Standard Oil of Missouri pre-1911 dissolved. Standard Oil of Louisiana always owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil). Standard Oil of Brazil always owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey (now ExxonMobil). Other companies divested in the 1911 breakup: Anglo-American Oil Co. acquired by Jersey Standard in 1930, now Esso UK. Buckeye Pipe Line Co. Borne-Scrymser Co. (chemicals) Chesebrough Manufacturing (acquired by Unilever) Colonial Oil. Crescent Pipeline Co. Cumberland Pipe Line Co. Eureka Pipe Line Co. Galena-Signal Oil Co. Indiana Pipe Line Co. National Transit Co. New York Transit Co. Northern Pipe Line Co. Prairie Oil & Gas. Solar Refining. Southern Pipe Line Co. South Penn Oil Co. eventually became Pennzoil, now part of Shell. Southwest Pennsylvania Pipe Line Co. Swan and Finch. Union Tank Lines. Washington Oil Co. Waters-Pierce.

Note: Standard Oil of Colorado was not a successor company; the name was used to capitalize on the Standard Oil brand in the 1930s. Standard Oil of Connecticut is a fuel oil marketer not related to the Rockefeller companies.

ANTITRUST LAWS: A BRIEF HISTORY

Way back in the 1800s, there were several giant businesses known as trusts. They controlled whole sections of the economy, like railroads, oil, steel, and sugar. Two of the most famous trusts were U.S. Steel and Standard Oil; they were monopolies that controlled the supply of their productas well as the price. With one company controlling an entire industry, there was no competition, and smaller businesses and people had no choices about from whom to buy. Prices went through the roof, and quality didnt have to be a priority. This caused hardship and threatened the new American prosperity. While the rich, trust-owning businessmen got richer and richer, the public got angry and demanded the government take action. President Theodore Roosevelt busted (or broke up) many trusts by enforcing what came to be known as antitrust laws. The goal of these law s was to protect consumers by promoting competition in the marketplace. The U.S. Congress passed several laws to help promote competition by outlawing unfair methods of competition: The Sherman Act is the nations oldest antitrust law. Passed in 1890, it makes it illegal for competitors to make agreements with each other that would limit competition. So, for example, they cant agree to set a price for a productthatd be price fixing. The Act also makes it illegal for a business to be a monopoly if that company is cheating or not competing fairly. Corporate executives who conduct their business that way could wind up paying huge finesand even go to jail! The Clayton Act was passed in 1914. With the Sherman Act in place, and trusts being broken up, business practices in America were changing. But some companies discovered merging as a way to control prices and production (instead of forming trusts, competitors united into a single company. The Clayton Act helps protect American consumers by stopping mergers/or acquisitions that are likely to stifle competition. With the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act (1914), Congress created a new federal agency to watch out for unfair business practicesand gave the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and stop unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices.

Today, the Federal Trade Commissions (FTCs) Bureau of Competition and the Department of Justices Antitrust Division enforce these three core federal antitrust laws. The agencies talk to each other before opening any investigation to decide who will investigate the facts and work on any case that might be brought. But each agency has developed expertise in certain industries. Every state has antitrust laws, too; they are enforced by each states attorney general. Theres an office in your state capitol that helps consumers or businesses who might be hurt when businesses dont compete fairly. Antitrust laws were not put in place to protect competing businesses from aggressive competition. Competition is tough, and sometimes businesses fail.

Thats the way it is in competitive markets, and consumers benefit from the rough and tumble competition among sellers3. In April 2012, the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and a group of book publishers, saying they colluded to fix e-book prices. Their plan was created in large part because they feared Amazon, which was selling e-books at below cost, was gaining monopolistic control of the market. Several of the publishers have agreed to settle the case. The case has raised questions over what constitutes competition and whether the anticompetitive practices of Apple and the book publishers could be justified to ensure that Amazon would have competition. Scott Turow, president of the Authors Guild, argued in a letter that the lawsuit was on the verge of killing real competition in order to save the appearance of competition. In a Times Op-Ed, Eduardo Porter argued that, Absent any collusion, Apples entry into the ebook market would be the kind of competitive challenge we should welcome in the digital world. However, as the piece also argues, price-fixing cannot be allowed and the scheme would cost consumers. More important, perhaps, this behavior could arrest the development of innovative platforms to sell digital goods on the Web.4

ANTI-TRUST LAW IN INDIA

In the wake of liberalization and privatization that was triggered in India in early nineties, a realization gathered momentum that the existing Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 ("MRTP Act") was not equipped adequately enough to tackle the competition aspect of the Indian economy. With starting of the globalization process, Indian enterprises started facing the heat of competition from domestic players as well as from global giants, which called for level playing field and investor-friendly environment. Hence, need arose with regard to competition laws to shift the focus from curbing monopolies to encouraging companies to invest and grow, thereby promoting competition while preventing any abuse of market power. Competition: Meaning And Benefits Competition is a situation in market, in which sellers independently strive for buyers patronage to achieve business objectives. Competition and liberalization, together unleash the entrepreneurial forces in the economy. Competition offers wide array of choices to consumers at reasonable prices, stimulates innovation and productivity, and leads to optimum allocation of resources. Abuse Of Market And Need For New Law

3 4

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/microsites/youarehere/pages/pdf/FTC-Competition_Antitrust-Laws.pdf http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/may-15-1911-supreme-court-orders-standard-oil-to-be-brokenup/?_r=0

In an open market economy, some enterprises may undermine the market by resorting to anticompetitive practices for short-term gains. These practices can completely nullify the benefits of competition. It is for this reason that, while countries across the globe are increasingly embracing market economy, they are also re-inforcing their economies through the enactment of competition law and setting up competition regulatory authority. In line with the international trend and to cope up with the changing realities India, consequently, enacted the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Designed as an omnibus code to deal with matters relating to the existence and regulation of competition and monopolies, the Act is intended to supersede and replace the MRTP Act. It is procedure intensive and is structured in an uncomplicated manner that renders it more flexible and compliance-oriented. Though the Act is not exclusivist and operates in tandem with other laws, the provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.

THREE STAGE TRANSITION

The Act provides for three-staged transition, spanning the first three years from the date of notification of the Act, wherein the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter, referred to as "CCI") would replace the MRTP Commission. First year At the onset of first year, MRTP Commission will cease to exist and CCI would assume the role of an advisory body. The pending cases in the MRTP Commission relating to unfair trade practices would be transferred to the concerned consumer courts under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The pending cases relating to monopolistic and restrictive trade practices have to be taken up for adjudication by CCI. Second year During the second year, CCI would scrutinize the anti-competitive practices. Third year During the third year, CCI would begin regulating the mergers and acquisitions that will have adverse impact on competition.

DEPARTURE FROM THE MRTP ACT

In a significant departure from the letter and spirit of the MRTP Act, the Act hinges on the "Effect Theory" and does not categorically decry or condemn the existence of a monopoly in the relevant market, rather the use of the monopoly status such that it operates to the detriment of the potential and actual competitors is sought to be curbed.

 The earlier legislation, considered draconian in the changed scenario, was based on size as a factor, while the new law is based on structure as a factor, aimed at bringing relief to the players in the market. The Act empowers CCI to impose penalty on delinquent enterprises, whereas in the MRTP Act there were no provisions regarding such enterprises MRTP Act could only pass "cease and desist" orders and did not have any other powers to prevent or punish while the new law contains punitive provisions. MRTP Act was applicable to Private and Public sector undertakings only, whereas, the new Act extends its reach to governmental departments engaged in business activities. As regards agreements, compulsory registration has been done away with. The most path-breaking chapter in the Act has been the emphasis on Competition Advocacy that was not at all contemplated by the MRTP Act.

OBJECTS TO BE ACHIEVED
I. II. III. IV. To check anti-competitive practices To prohibit abuse of dominance Regulation of combinations. To provide for the establishment of CCI, a quasi-judicial body to perform below mentioned duties: Prevent practices having adverse impact on competition Promote and sustain competition in the market Protect consumer interests at large Ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in the market Look into matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

The act is comprehensive enough and meticulously carved out to meet the requirements of the new era of market economy, which has dawned upon the horizon of Indian economic system. It is in synchronization with other set of policies such as liberalized trade policy, relaxed FDI norms, FEMA, deregulation etc, that would ensure uniformity in overall competition policy. Its just a matter of time when the Act is made effective and CCI becomes functional, which would, in turn, help realize our aspiration to catch up with the global economy. However, the Act is truly reflective of changing economic milieu of our country and is well equipped to promote fair competition and take care of impinging market practices, facilitate domestic players vis--vis outsiders, safeguard the interests of consumers and thus, ensure vibrancy and stability in the Indian market.