Case No. 33 of 2023
Page 1 of 12
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 33 of 2023
In Re:
Metallurgical Products India Private Limited (“MPIL”)
T-27, MIDC, Taloja, Dist. Raigad, PIN- 410208.
Informant
And
Government of India through The Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy (“DEA”)
Anushakti Bhavan, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
Opposite Party No.1
IREL (India) Ltd. (“IREL”)
(Formerly Indian Rare Earths Ltd.)
ECIL Building, Plot No. 1207,
Veer Savarkar Marg, off. Siddhivinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 028.
Opposite Party No.2
CORAM
Ms. Ravneet Kaur
Chairperson
Mr. Anil Agrawal
Member
Ms. Sweta Kakkad
Member
Mr. Deepak Anurag
Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
1. The present Information has been filed by Metallurgical Products India Private Limited
(“Informant”/ “MPIL”), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the
Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) by Government of India through The Secretary, Department
of Atomic Energy (“OP-1”/ “DAE”) and IREL (India) Ltd. (“OP-2”/ “IREL”).
Case No. 33 of 2023
Page 2 of 12
2. As per the Information, the Informant is a private limited company, engaged in the business
of production/processing/conversion of Columbite and Tantalite ores to produce and
market Niobium and Tantalum products, from its manufacturing facility located in MIDC-
Taloja, Maharashtra.
3. OP-1 is Union of India, through The Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy. OP-2 is a
Government of India undertaking which functions under the administrative control of DAE
and engaged in mining and chemical processing of mineral sands containing Uranium,
Thorium and rare earth minerals and producing minerals such as Ilmenite, Rutile, Monazite,
Zircon, Uranium, Thorium, Garnet etc.
4. As per the Information, Columbite and Tantalite ores are chemically processed to extract
Niobium and Tantalum products which are used in a range of industries including for
developing an ecosystem for semi-conductor industry and therefore, are strategically
important for the development of new-age technologies in India.
5. It has been stated that while processing the Columbite and Tantalite ores, ‘Slag’ or ‘Leach
Residue’ is generated, which is a radioactive substance/prescribed substance/by-product. It
has also been stated that under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (“AEA”) and Atomic Energy
(Working of the Mines Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances) Rules, 1984
(“Prescribed Substances Rules”), DAE is the only competent authority in India entrusted
with the task of granting license for importing and processing Columbite and Tantalite ores
and also directing and approving a disposal plan for Uranium-bearing Leach Residue
generated while processing such prescribed substances.
6. Further, as stated by the Informant, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s (“AERB”)
Safety Guidelines stipulate separate processes for handling and safe disposal of the
radioactive substance (i.e., the Leach Residue) generated during the processing of
Columbite and Tantalite. It has been stated by the Informant that only the Central
Government itself or any authority or corporation established by it or a government
company or any entity permitted by the Central Government can engage in disposal of the
Case No. 33 of 2023
Page 3 of 12
Uranium-bearing Leach Residue. The Informant has cited sections 5 and 6 of the AEA in
this regard.
7. It has been stated that the Informant was permitted by DAE to set up its plant/factory to
process Columbite and Tantalite ores to produce Niobium and Tantalum products in India
during 2002-03.
8. As per the Informant, without approval of DAE, a Columbite and Tantalite processing plant
cannot function in India. It has been stated that a disposal plan comprises of a person
appointed by DAE who is required to regularly collect such Uranium bearing Leach
Residue from such Columbite/Tantalite plants, process it to recover contained Uranium and
dispose of the final spent material.
9. It has also been stated by the Informant that AERB, granted Registration Certificate to the
Informant, which is “Consent to Operate” the Informant’s facility for processing Columbite
and Tantalite ores. The concerned certificate was renewed continually till 30.04.2023. The
Informant has further stated that DAE granted the necessary approval for the concerned
disposal plan dated 04.04.2003 by entrusting the responsibility of its execution to OP-2.
10. It has been stated that through the disposal plan, IREL will periodically collect and dispose
the Uranium bearing Leach Residue produced in the Informant’s plant. To give effect to
the concerned plan, IREL entered into agreements (“off-take agreement”) (required to be
periodically renewed) with the Informant. As per the terms of the off-take agreement, if the
Leach Residue yields REO > 1% (Uranium Oxide), DAE and IREL would compensate the
Informant for Uranium Oxide content. This arrangement regarding monetary
compensation, which was decided by DAE/IREL exclusively, was the subject matter of 2-
year contracts executed on largely identical terms between the Informant and IREL and
subsisted for 15 years.
11. It has further been stated that the disposal plan does not have a sunset clause under the
stated legal framework and consequently, the two-year off-take agreement also do not have
any termination clause. Further, citing an RTI reply dated 01.12.2020 from AERB, the
Case No. 33 of 2023
Page 4 of 12
Informant has stated that AERB has not received any directives regarding termination of
the disposal plan by DAE.
12. It has been stated that the Informant had applied for renewal of the said agreement on
28.02.2017, exactly one month prior to the expiration of the last agreement; however, by a
letter dated 12.01.2018, IREL refused to renew the agreement: (a) without stating any
reasons for non-renewal, (b) applying the non-renewal retrospectively from 27.03.2017
(after a lapse of 10 months) and (c) without any fault of the Informant. As per the
Information, IREL in its letter to the Informant dated 27.02.2018, stated the following:
“……If MPIL residue is made fluoride-free, it may be useful for further processing.
However, no such process is available at IREL for removal of such impurities. MPIL may
contact State/Central research laboratories or BARC for development of process for
removal of such impurities and contact DAE for lifting of such residue (without fluoride)
for recovery of strategic material, if any.”
13. It is also stated that vide its letter dated 03.01.2019, DAE stopped the issuance of import
licenses to the Informant citing the absence of the off-take agreement and called upon the
Informant to submit an alternative disposal plan. As per the Informant, providing a disposal
plan for a Columbite and Tantalite processing plant is the exclusive responsibility of DAE
and the same cannot be passed onto any other person.
14. It has further been stated that while it was not for the Informant to create a disposal plan,
by virtue of letter dated 16.01.2019, the Informant requested DAE to provide directions to
the Uranium Corporation India Limited (“UCIL”) to finalize an off-take agreement as an
alternative to IREL, if required. In that regard, the Informant informed the DAE that it had
developed a process to make the Leach Residue fluoride free so that it could be processed
by UCIL or any other suitable DAE unit for recovery of Uranium and its final disposal.
15. The Informant stated that a technical presentation was made by it to AERB on 27.02.2019,
explaining the process to make the Leach Residue fluoride free, which was attended by
experts from AERB, along with senior technical people from IREL and UCIL. On the
advice of AERB dated 04.04.2019, this was forwarded to DAE vide Informant’s letter dated
