World Trade Organization Organisation Mondiale du Commerce Organización Mundial del Comercio

India is making efforts to gather the information relating to support programmes of state governments so that these may be notified to the WTO, if required.

According to publicly available information India's Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) maintains a series of "subsidy assistance schemes" for the fisheries sector (see http://www.mpeda.com/inner_home.asp?pg=subsidy/subsidy.htm).

One of these ongoing subsidy assistance schemes is labelled "Financial Assistance for constructing New Tuna Long Liners". According to the information provided in the website the objective of the scheme is "To encourage the fishermen to construct New Tuna Long liners". Also according to the website the assistance rate is "5% points on bank interest limited to Rs.10 lakh for 18 20 meter vessels and Rs.15 lakh for above 20 meter vessels".

11. 
    Could India provide information on the implementation of this scheme, in particular the number of vessels built with subsidies granted through this scheme and the amounts disbursed? Has India carried an assessment of the impact of the increase in fishing capacity, following the implementation of the scheme, on existing fishery resources, in particular tuna stocks?
    

Reply: Under the MPEDA "Financial Assistance for constructing New Tuna Long Liners" scheme, no financial assistance has been released. Therefore, the question of any assessment of impact on the fisheries resources does not arise. India's MSY for tuna and tuna like species is 210,000 tonnes and the catch is only 138,000 tonnes.

(iii) Competition policy

WTO Secretariat's report, page 98 99, para. 195

11. 
    Could India indicate the up to date number of requests received by the CCI and make a breakdown of the type of requests according to instrument (cartels, dominance etc.) as well as indicate the statistics on the follow up given to those requests? The 30 orders given, are these of a procedural nature or do they represent final decisions on the substance in requests received by the CCI?
    

WTO Secretariat´s report, page 100, para. 201

Regarding regulators' powers and competencies compared to those of the CCI, the report alludes to possible difficulties for the CCI in the implementation of the Competition Act.

Reply: CCI has so far received 141 requests excluding the 50 transferred cases from MRTPC. As in many cases, the request has been received under both the provisions of anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominant position; it could not be classified according to the instruments (cartels, dominance, etc.). Out of these 141 requests, 43 have been closed at a prima facie stage under section 26(2) of the Act, whereas 19 cases have been decided after a full investigation. Out of the 50 transferred cases from MRTPC, 21 were cases have been closed at a prima facie stage under section 26(2) of the Act, whereas 18 cases have been decided after a full investigation. These 37 orders given after the investigation by Director General represent final decision on the substance in request received by the CCI.

11. 
    Could India further explain the different competencies of the regulators and the CCI and the cooperation framework? Could India clarify, for example, if the CCI can autonomously launch investigations and make decisions on competition issues in the sectors covered by regulators? Is there obligatory hearing of the CCI before the enactment of sector regulation in the regulated sectors?
    

Reply: Cooperation with other regulators has been provided by way of sections 21 and 21A of the Competition Act, 2002. Section 21 states that a statutory authority (regulator), during the course of a proceeding before it, on an issue raised by a party or suo motu, has taken or proposes to take a decision which would be contrary to Competition Act, may make a reference to CCI in respect of such issue. CCI would provide an opinion within 60 days of such reference to the concerned authority and the said authority would give its finding recording reasons on the issue concerned. Similarly, during the course of proceedings before the Commission, on an issue raised by a party or suo motu, in which the Commission has taken or proposes to take a decision which would be contrary to any provisions of any Act, may make a reference to the statutory authority concerned with the implementation of the said Act. The said authority would provide an opinion within 60 days of such reference to the Commission and the Commission would consider the opinion given by statutory authority and give its finding recording reasons on the issue concerned.

CCI can autonomously launch investigations and make decisions on competition issues in the sectors covered by other regulators, for e.g. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, if it falls within the parameters of the Competition Act, 2002. There is no provision dealing with "obligatory hearing of the CCI before the enactment of sector regulation in the regulated sectors".

11. 
    Regarding SOEs, could India indicate if entities in which it has stakes and which operate in commercial sectors do benefit of privileged access to subsidies or special subsidization in particular if they make losses?
    

Reply: The Government of India has established the Board for Reconstruction of Public Sector Enterprises (BRPSE) in December 2004 to advise the Government, inter alia, on measures to restructure/revive sick and loss making CPSEs. The concerned administrative ministries/departments are required to submit proposals in this regard for consideration of BRPSE. The concerned administrative ministry/department is thereafter required to obtain the approval of competent authority for the revival package on the basis of recommendation of BRPSE.

11. 
    Does the Competition Act apply fully to the STEs mentioned in paragraph 68 of the Secretariat's report, and does the CCI have the authority to take decisions regarding any anti competitive practice entertained by STEs?
    

Reply: Competition Act fully applies to STEs mentioned in paragraph 68 of the Secretariat's report and CCI has the authority to take decisions regarding any anti competitive practice entertained by STEs.

11. 
    Does the Competition Act apply fully to the 249 central public sector enterprises (CPSEs) mentioned in paragraph 143 of the Secretariat's report and does the CCI have the authority to take decisions regarding any anti competitive practice entertained by CPSEs?
    

WTO Secretariat´s report, page 101, para. 204

Reply: Yes, the Competition Act applies fully to the 249 CPSEs and CCI has the authority to take decisions regarding any anti competitive practice entertained by CPSEs, but does not include any activity of the Government related to the sovereign functions of the Government including all activities carried on by the departments of the Central Government dealing with atomic energy, currency, defence and space, as per the definition of "enterprise" under section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002.

11. 
    How many notifications of combinations has the CCI received since June 2011 and how many cases have been decided upon?
    

Reply: Three notices under section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 have been received. CCI has issued orders in 2 cases and one case is under review. In addition, CCI has also received details of acquisition, under the provisions of section 6(5) of the Act in two cases.

11. 
    Has there been given any exemptions granted of the kind referred to in this paragraph?