XYZ Vs. Jindal Stainless Limited and Ors. · Case No. 30 of 2025

Case No. 30 of 2025 Page 1 of 22 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 30 of 2025

In Re: XYZ Informant And Jindal Stainless Limited OP Jindal Marg, Hisar, Haryana, India - 125005.

Opposite Party No. 1 Eternal Tsingshan Group Co. Ltd. 4F and 7F Tsingshan Holding Group Building A, No. 2666 Longxiang Road, Longwan District, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, Indonesia.

Opposite Party No. 2 PT Qing Feng Ferrochrome Gedung IMIP, JI. Batu Mulia No. 8, RT 007 RW 007, Meruya Utara, Kec. Kembangan, Kota Barat, Jakarta Daerah Khusus Ibukota, Jakarta, 11620

Opposite Party No. 3 PT. Indonesia Guang Ching Nickel and Stainless-Steel Industry Gedung IMIP, JI. Batu Mulia No. 8, RT 007 RW 007, Meruya Utara, Kec. Kembangan, Kota Barat, Jakarta Daerah Khusus Ibukota, Jakarta, 11620

Opposite Party No. 4 PT Indonesia Ruipu and Chrome Alloy Nickel IMIP Building, JI. Batu Mulia No. 8, RT 007 RW 007, North Meruya, Kembangan District, Jakarta Special West City, Capital Region, 11620. Jakarta Opposite Party No. 5

Case No. 30 of 2025 Page 2 of 22 CORAM Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson

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 the Informant under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’), against Jindal Stainless Limited (‘JSL’/‘Opposite Party 1’ / ‘OP-1’) , Eternal Tsingshan Group Co. Ltd. (‘Opposite Party 2’ / ‘OP- 2’/’ET Group’), PT Qing Feng Ferrochrome (‘Opposite Party 3’ / ‘OP-3’), PT Indonesia Guang Ching Nickel & Stainless Steel Industry(‘Opposite Party 4’ / ‘OP- 4’), and PT Indonesia Ripu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (‘Opposite Party 5’/ ‘OP-5’), collectively referred to as the ‘Opposite Parties’ or ‘OPs’, alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

2. The Informant is an Indian stainless steel market participant engaged in the downstream production and trade of stainless-steel products. The Informant has claimed confidentiality over its identity throughout the investigation process and any ensuing proceedings under the Act against the Opposite Parties.

3. As per the Information, OP-1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at O.P. Jindal Marg, Hisar, Haryana, India - 125005. OP-1 owns integrated operations to run stainless steel manufacturing and processing facilities in India and across the world.

Case No. 30 of 2025 Page 3 of 22 4. As per the Information, OP-2 is a large-sized Chinese enterprise active in the stainless steel and nickel industry in Indonesia. It entered the Indonesian nickel industry in 2009. The board of directors of OP-2 is stated to govern four groups (including OP-2) and more than 100 subsidiaries. Indonesia Morowali Industrial Park (‘IMIP’), a subsidiary of Tsingshan Holding Group through OP-2, is OP-2's overseas project located in Morowali in Central Sulawesi Province in Indonesia. The Morowali Park is recognised as the world's largest vertically integrated stainless steel production centre and the epicentre of global nickel production.

5. As per the Information, OP-3 operates in OP-2's Morowali Park, and its primary offerings are ferrochrome and stainless-steel products. The production capacity of ferrochrome and stainless steel of OP-3 is 700,000 tons per year and 3 million tons (‘MT’) per year, respectively. OP-4, also operating from Morowali Park, is a subsidiary of OP-2 and is engaged in the production of nickel pig iron, steel slab, and hot rolled coil. OP-5, operating from Morowali Park, is also a subsidiary of OP-2 and is involved in the production of ferrochrome, nickel pig iron, and cold rolled coil.

6. The Informant has submitted that nickel is a critical raw material for the production of stainless steel. As India does not possess indigenous nickel reserves, the domestic stainless-steel industry is substantially reliant on imports. According to the Informant, following Indonesia's ban on the export of unprocessed nickel ore in 2020, Indian stainless-steel manufacturers were required to source semi-finished stainless-steel products, particularly stainless-steel slabs (‘SS Slabs’) and stainless-steel hot rolled coils (‘SS HRC’), from Indonesia.

7. The Informant has stated that OP-3 operates in the upstream market for the supply of SS Slabs, while OP-4 and OP-5 operate in the upstream market for the supply of nickel- rich SS HRC. OP-1 is stated to be active in the downstream market for the production of SS HRC as well as cold rolled stainless steel (‘CRSS’). According to the Informant, the CRSS industry in India is heavily dependent on the availability of SS Slabs and SS HRC.

Case No. 30 of 2025 Page 4 of 22 8. The Informant has further submitted that the production process follows a sequential and technically integrated value chain, namely: SS Slabs → Hot Rolling → Hot Rolled Stainless Steel (‘HRSS’) (SS HRC/plates) → Cold Rolling → CRSS (sheets, coils, coated products, pipes, etc.). On this basis, the Informant has contended that the production of CRSS is dependent on the availability of HRSS, and the production of HRSS, in turn, is dependent on the availability of SS Slabs.

9. It has been alleged by the Informant that OP-1 has entered into an exclusive agreement with OP-3 for the supply of SS Slabs rich in nickel. The arrangement is in the nature of refusal to deal, whereby OP-3 supplies SS Slabs to OP-1 alone, excluding other Indian importers. Further, when Ministry of Steel, Government of India (‘MoS’) adopted a stringent approach of not allowing SS Slab imports without a valid Bureau of Indian Standards (‘BIS’) license in 2023, OP-1 shifted to imports of SS HRC. OP- 1 entered into similar restrictive arrangements with OP-4 and OP-5 for the supply of SS HRC, whereunder they refused to supply SS HRC to any other Indian CRSS manufacturer. Such agreements are in the nature of exclusive dealing and refusal to deal vertical agreements and in violation of Section 3(4)(b) and Section 3(4)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

10. The Informant has delineated the relevant market at two levels: (i) the broad market for CRSS products in India; and (ii) the narrower market for wide CRSS products in India. According to the Informant, CRSS products are classified into "wide" and "narrow" categories based on their width, with each category serving distinct applications and end-use industries. Owing to their differing characteristics and downstream uses, the Informant has contended that the two categories cater to different consumer segments and are not substitutable.

11. The Informant has further alleged that OP-1 enjoys a dominant position in the market for wide CRSS products in India. In support of this contention, the Informant has stated that OP-1 holds a market share exceeding 60% in the said market and possesses significant economic strength. The Informant also submitted that OP-1 acquired 100% stake in Chromeni Steels Private Limited (‘Chromeni’) that has a cold rolling mill

Case No. 30 of 2025 Page 5 of 22 located in Gujarat thereby augmenting the capacity of cold rolled products in OP- 1's product mix. The Informant has also relied upon factors such as OP-1's sales, size and economic power, vertically integrated operations, the existence of substantial entry barriers, high capital and operating cost requirements, and the relatively low market shares of competing manufacturers.

12. The Informant has further alleged that the restrictive practices adopted by OP-1, through its arrangements with OP-3, OP-4 and OP-5, have the effect of denying market access to potential competitors and substantially foreclosing the upstream levels of the CRSS supply chain, thereby contravening Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. According to the Informant, these arrangements impair the ability of competing manufacturers to procure critical upstream inputs, thereby restricting their capacity to produce products of comparable quality and limiting their ability to compete and innovate in the relevant market of wide CRSS products in India.

13. The Informant also alleged that the conduct of OP-1 under its Jindal Saathi programme and the associated Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) is in contravention of Sections 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(c) of the Act. According to the Informant, OP-1 introduced the Jindal Saathi programme in 2019, and execution of a valid and subsisting MoU with OP-1 is a prerequisite for participation in the programme. The Informant has contended that the terms of the MoU and the Jindal Saathi programme require participating dealers to procure the maximum possible quantity of material directly from OP-1, thereby creating a de facto exclusivity arrangement and lock-in effect in the downstream market. It has been further alleged that only the dealers having an MoU with OP-1 are eligible to participate in the Jindal Saathi programme. As per the Informant, the MoU prescribes minimum monthly and/or annual procurement thresholds that must be met for eligibility, and provides for discounts and bonus incentives linked to procurement volumes. The Informant has alleged that these incentives increase progressively with higher levels of procurement, thereby encouraging exclusive sourcing from OP-1.

Case No. 30 of 2025 Page 6 of 22 14. The Informant has contended that the aforesaid agreements and commercial arrangements have cumulatively resulted in the denial of market access to rival stainless-steel manufacturers, creation of entry barriers in the Indian stainless-steel market, a reduction in consumer choice, and the artificial elevation of prices, thereby distorting competitive conditions in the market.

15. The Informant has, inter alia, prayed that the Commission initiate an inquiry into the conduct and arrangements of the Opposite Parties under Section 26(1) of the Act by directing the Director General (‘DG’) to investigate the matter, direct the OPs to cease and desist from the alleged anti-competitive conduct with immediate effect, impose a monetary penalty equivalent to 10% of the average turnover of the OPs for the three preceding financial years (‘FYs’), and exercise its powers under Section 28 of the Act by directing the divestment of OP-1's interest in Chromeni to ensure a level playing field in the market.

Consideration by the Commission 16. The Commission considered the Information in its ordinary meeting held on 18.12.2025 and, vide order of the even date, directed the Informant to furnish the specified clarifications within four weeks from the receipt of the order. The Commission also directed that a copy of the non-confidential version of the Information be forwarded to OP-1 for filing its reply, along with its response to the specified clarifications, within the same period. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.02.2026, the Commission, upon the request of OP-1, extended the time for filing its reply until 23.03.2026 and directed the Informant to submit its response within the same extended period. The Informant and OP-1 subsequently filed their respective responses. The Commission considered the Information and the material available on record, including the responses filed by the Informant and OP-1, in its ordinary meeting held on 24.06.2026 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.

17. Before adverting to the issues arising out of the present Information, it would be appropriate to note, in brief, the submissions of the Informant and OP-1 in their respective responses.