CCI Declares No Violation: Dominance and Anti-Competitive Claims Against Jindal Stainless Over Stainless Steel Inputs

CCI Declares No Violation: Dominance and Anti-Competitive Claims Against Jindal Stainless Over Stainless Steel Inputs​

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ruled that there is no prima facie case of violation regarding allegations of anti-competitive conduct in the highly integrated Indian stainless steel market. The investigation, which examined arrangements involving Jindal Stainless Limited (JSL), found that accusations of input foreclosure and abuse of dominant position were not substantiated by the evidence presented.

The final order, dated 21/07/2026, addressed grievances concerning exclusive dealing practices, the significance of a joint venture in Indonesia, and the workings of JSL’s downstream sales programs. The Commission directed the closure of the information filed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.

Background on the Stainless Steel Market Investigation​

The case involves an Information filed by an anonymous Indian stainless steel market participant (the Informant) against Jindal Stainless Limited (OP-1). The Opposite Parties also included international firms such as Eternal Tsingshan Group Co. Ltd. (OP-2), PT Qing Feng Ferrochrome (OP-3), and PT Indonesia Guang Ching Nickel & Stainless Steel Industry (OP-4), all operating within the global stainless steel value chain.

The Informant alleged that JSL, a major integrated domestic player, had abused its market position. The claims focused on two primary areas: exclusionary practices in the upstream supply of specialized materials, and restraints associated with downstream purchasing programs like Jindal Saathi.

Allegations Regarding Input Foreclosure and Exclusive Dealing​

A central allegation revolved around restrictive agreements between JSL (OP-1) and the Indonesian-based entities (OP-3, OP-4, and OP-5). The Informant contended that these arrangements, relating to stainless steel slabs (SS Slabs) and SS HRC, amounted to exclusive dealing and refusal to deal. These practices were alleged to violate Sections 3(4)(b) and 3(4)(d) of the Act.

The allegation continued that these conduct constituted a denial of market access, thereby substantially foreclosing the upstream levels of the CRSS (Cold Rolled Stainless Steel) supply chain for competing manufacturers in India. The Informant also cited JSL's acquisitions, including a 100% stake in Chromeni Steels Private Limited, as evidence augmenting OP-1's significant economic strength and market power.

CCI Analysis of Upstream Market Concerns​

Regarding the procurement of critical inputs like SS Slabs and SS HRC, the Commission determined that the allegations were largely unsubstantiated by direct evidence. The Informant failed to provide proof demonstrating instances where it or any competitor sought these specific materials from OP-3, OP-4, or OP-5 and was consequently denied supply.

The Commission noted that multiple domestic and international sources for SS Slabs and SS HRC are readily available. These inputs can be sourced from various BIS certified overseas manufacturers in countries including Sweden, Japan, China, and the United Arab Emirates.

Furthermore, OP-1 justified its collaboration with ET Group by noting that the joint venture established in Indonesia is an efficiency enhancing backward integration initiative. This arrangement is aimed at securing long term access to critical raw materials for JSL's planned expansion, not restricting competitors.

Scrutiny of Downstream Market and Jindal Saathi Program​

The Informant also alleged that JSL abused its dominant position in the market for wide CRSS products through its internal programs. These claims concerned the Jindal Saathi programme and associated Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs). The Informant argued that these commercial arrangements created a de facto exclusivity, compelling downstream dealers to meet high procurement thresholds set by OP-1.

In response, OP-1 submitted that the MoU is a voluntary, transparent, and efficiency driven arrangement. The program is characterized as an optional co branding and certification initiative intended to protect brand integrity and prevent material mixing through traceability mechanisms.

The CCI concurred with OP-1’s defense regarding this point, finding that participation in both the Jindal Saathi programme and its MoU is voluntary. In the absence of evidence demonstrating customer lock in, denial of market access, or loss of business for competitors, the Commission found no material to conclude an abuse of dominant position under Sections 4(2)(a) or 4(2)(c).

Market Structure and Final Determination​

The CCI addressed the complexity surrounding market delineation. While the Informant argued that the relevant market was the "wide CRSS products in India" (downstream), OP-1 contended this was too narrow, arguing for a focus on the global supply of raw materials and intermediate inputs (upstream). The Commission agreed to examine both vertically related markets: the supply of SS Slabs/SS HRC (upstream) and the market for CRSS in India (downstream).

The Commission concluded that OP-1 does not appear to hold a dominant position in the upstream input market, given the presence of multiple suppliers. While acknowledging OP-1’s strong economic resources and significant presence in the wide CRSS segment, the CCI ultimately found that the allegations concerning denial of market access or foreclosure could not be substantiated.

The investigation into the alleged violations of Sections 3(4) and Section 4 of the Act against the Opposite Parties was therefore closed by the Commission due to lack of a prima facie case of contravention. The matter concerns only commercial arrangements that were assessed as voluntary and competitive in nature.