The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has sought a probe into a joint venture of Monsanto arguing that there exists a prima facie case of abuse of dominant position against the firm regarding supply of genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds.
This follows complaints from 'informants' (Nuziveedu Seeds, Prabhat Agri Biotech and Pravardhan Seeds) as well as stakeholders including National Seed Association of India and BJP Kisan Morcha to the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. They alleged that Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd (or MMBL) abused its dominant position by charging unreasonably high trait fees (value for the trait of insect resistance conferred by the Bt gene technology) for Bt cotton seeds," even "higher than what is determined by state governments."
Bt cotton technology assures an increase in output. MMBL is a JV between Monsanto Inc, USA (MIU) and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (MAHYCO) engaged in sublicensing of Bt cotton technology of MIU in India.
The complainants also alleged that the company was exploiting permissions given by the government to market Bt cotton technology by creating a monopoly through restrictive agreements for unjust enrichment by charging high trait value from its licensees and ultimately from farmers. They also claimed that the sub-licensing agreements with the Indian seed manufacturing companies are anti-competitive under the Competition Act.
Noting that "there exists a prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of the (Competition) Act by the company,” the CCI -- in its order on February 10 --asked its Director General (DG) to carry out an investigation and complete it within 60 days.
The CCI said if the DG finds the company has violated the Competition Act provisions, “the DG shall also investigate the role of the officials/ persons who at the time of such contravention were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of their business."
However, the CCI said nothing stated in its order "shall tantamount to final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the DG shall conduct the investigation without being swayed in any manner whatsoever by the observations made herein."
M S Sahoo in his dissent order, said: “if an enterprise is not complying with the trait fee fixed by a competent authority, it is for the authority to enforce it.
