BR100 Increased By (0.79%)
BR30 Increased By (0.6%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.76%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.78%)
AGHA 7.81 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.77%)
BECO 5.23 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.77%)
BML 57.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.96 (-1.64%)
BOP 34.33 Increased By ▲ 0.64 (1.9%)
CNERGY 10.87 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (2.45%)
CSIL 5.47 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (3.21%)
FCCL 54.60 Increased By ▲ 0.86 (1.6%)
FFL 16.78 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (1.94%)
FNEL 1.25 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (2.46%)
KEL 7.43 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (2.06%)
KOSM 5.80 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (2.84%)
LOTCHEM 29.84 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (0.64%)
MLCF 96.42 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.06%)
NBP 206.00 Increased By ▲ 2.47 (1.21%)
NCPL 58.30 Increased By ▲ 1.45 (2.55%)
NPL 69.93 Increased By ▲ 2.62 (3.89%)
OGDC 319.96 Increased By ▲ 1.74 (0.55%)
PACE 10.95 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (3.01%)
PAEL 43.11 Increased By ▲ 1.34 (3.21%)
PIBTL 16.98 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (1.01%)
PPL 222.50 Increased By ▲ 2.33 (1.06%)
PRL 52.17 Increased By ▲ 3.12 (6.36%)
PTC 71.35 Increased By ▲ 1.34 (1.91%)
SSGC 29.43 Increased By ▲ 0.29 (1%)
TBL 9.95 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.84%)
TELE 8.95 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.47%)
TPL 17.81 Increased By ▲ 0.64 (3.73%)
TPLP 13.02 Increased By ▲ 0.51 (4.08%)
TREET 22.89 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (1.33%)
TRG 60.50 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (0.46%)

ISLAMABAD: The Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Creative Engineering against the order of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP).

The CCP held in its order that M/s Creative Engineering and four other undertakings were involved in collusive bidding for a Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) tender, thus violating Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2010. As a result, the CCP imposed a total penalty of Rs10 million on the five entities (Rs2 million each) involved in the collusion.

Previously, the Commission took suo moto notice of potential bid rigging in PESCO’s tender for the procurement of power distribution equipment. Subsequently, an enquiry was also conducted wherein it was concluded that the five undertakings, including Creative Engineering, colluded to divide the tender quantities amongst themselves and to bid at a uniform price, while giving an impression of a competitive bidding process. The CCP’s order established the violation of Section 4(1) read with Section 4(2) (a), (b) and (e) of the Act 2010.

Creative Engineering challenged the Commission’s order before the Competition Appellate Tribunal. However, due to its persistent failure to appear on the scheduled hearing dates, the Tribunal, vide order dated 27 February 2024, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.