Skip to main content

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Working Out the Standards for Excessive Pricing in South Africa

verfasst von : Liberty Mncube, Mfundo Ngobese

Erschienen in: Excessive Pricing and Competition Law Enforcement

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Excessive pricing is one of the contentious areas of competition law and the standards are developing. South Africa has had at least two important excessive pricing cases. We review the approaches of the Competition Tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court in the Mittal Steel and Sasol decisions in order to demonstrate the complexity of the challenge of giving practical effect to the excessive pricing provisions of the Competition Act. Both the Mittal Steel and the Sasol decisions were concerned with excessive pricing by former state-owned firms. For example, Mittal Steel sold steel in the domestic market at more than import parity to its many South African customers that needed steel as an input while selling the steel for export at the much lower world price. We argue that the ultimate solution may be found in the purposive reading of the law which at the same time does not ignore the required elements to be proved.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
See, for example, Roberts (2008) who argues that it matters how the firm acquired this position and that this position is sustained through the lack of effective challenge from new entrants or other smaller firms, rather than through the firm’s own ongoing product development or innovative effort.
 
2
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 29.
 
3
Interestingly, Roberts (2008) observes that Mittal Steel’s previous state ownership and support also accord with the exceptional conditions identified by economists such as Evans and Padilla (Evans and Padilla 2005b) for pursuing a case of excessive pricing.
 
4
Competition Amendment Bill of 2017, Government Gazette no. 41294, Notice No. 1345.
 
5
Ezrachi and Gilo point out the reasonable consumer would not want to buy goods priced above true value.
 
6
United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v The Commission of the European Communities [1978] 1 CMLR 429.
 
7
Evans and Padilla (2005a), in their discussion of various policies towards the prohibition of excessive pricing by dominant firms, emphasise the ‘conceptual as well as practical difficulties’ of determining what constitutes an ‘unfair’ price for purposes of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.
 
8
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 89, 157–159.
 
9
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 148.
 
10
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 96.
 
11
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 96.
 
12
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 106.
 
13
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 127.
 
14
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 127.
 
15
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 151.
 
16
Mittal SA set its base prices for flat steel products in the domestic market by calculating the notional cost of importing those products. It then added a 5% ‘hassle factor’, essentially a reflection of the additional costs or ‘hassle’ entailed in importing over the advantage of utilising a domestic supplier.
 
17
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 47.
 
18
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 79.
 
19
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 8.
 
20
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 28.
 
21
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 30, 32.
 
22
The CAC favoured the EU approach of using multiple benchmarks, including a price-cost comparison and also a comparison between the allegedly excessive prices charged by the dominant firm and prices that are subject to competitive constraints.
 
23
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 32.
 
24
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 47.
 
25
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 28.
 
26
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 34.
 
27
Calcagno and Walker (2010) state in relation to Mittal that the CAC’s ruling is “economically coherent and in line with what most economists would consider a reasonable approach to the messy and difficult business of assessing whether a firm is charging excessive prices”. They are further supported by O’Donoghue and Padilla (2013) who state that in relation to the Mittal case, assessing economic value in way proposed by the CAC seems correct as a matter of economics.
 
28
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 51 (which also cites Motta and de Streel (2007).
 
29
Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014], para 119. Excessive pricing prohibitions must be understood to be aimed at pricing that is not the legitimate reward of monopoly power arising from the fruits of successful investment, innovation or efficiency.
 
30
Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014], para 176.
 
31
Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014], para 211–236.
 
32
Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014], para 307–315 in respect of propylene and para 341–357 in relation to polypropylene.
 
33
Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014], para 316–340.
 
34
Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014], para 411–419.
 
35
Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014], para 363.
 
36
Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014], para 102. See also, for example, Ezrachi and Gilo (2009, 2010).
 
37
Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015], para 100.
 
38
Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015] , para 111.
 
39
Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015], para 84–115.
 
40
Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015], para52–160.
 
41
Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015], para 161–176.
 
42
Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015], para 160, 186.
 
43
Note that Liberty Mncube (co-author of this chapter) was a member of the Ministerial Advisory Panel on drafting amendments to the Competition Act.
 
44
For both propylene and polypropylene, the CAC determined economic value solely by reference to SCI’s costs, adjusted in accordance with the adjustments proposed by SCI’s financial expert. The CAC accepted all of the adjustments proposed by SCI’s financial expert, including those the Tribunal had rejected. The CAC also accepted all of the adjustments to SCI’s prices proposed by SCI’s financial expert.
 
45
Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007], para 71.
 
46
Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015], para 167, 177.
 
47
Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v Harmony Gold Mining [2009], para 47.
 
48
See Gal (2004).
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Calcagno, C., & Walker, M. (2010). Excessive pricing: Towards clarity and economic coherence. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 6(4), 891–910.CrossRef Calcagno, C., & Walker, M. (2010). Excessive pricing: Towards clarity and economic coherence. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 6(4), 891–910.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Evans, D. S., & Padilla, A. J. (2005a). Excessive prices: Using economics to define administrable legal rules. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 1(1), 97–122.CrossRef Evans, D. S., & Padilla, A. J. (2005a). Excessive prices: Using economics to define administrable legal rules. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 1(1), 97–122.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Evans, D. S., & Padilla, A. J. (2005b). Designing antitrust rules for assessing unilateral practices: A Neo-Chicago approach. University of Chicago Law Review, 73, 76–80. Evans, D. S., & Padilla, A. J. (2005b). Designing antitrust rules for assessing unilateral practices: A Neo-Chicago approach. University of Chicago Law Review, 73, 76–80.
Zurück zum Zitat Ezrachi, A., & Gilo, D. (2009). Are excessive prices really self correcting? Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(2), 249–268.CrossRef Ezrachi, A., & Gilo, D. (2009). Are excessive prices really self correcting? Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(2), 249–268.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ezrachi, A., & Gilo, D. (2010). Excessive pricing, entry, assessment and investment: Lessons from the Mittal litigation. Antitrust Law Journal, 73, 873–879. Ezrachi, A., & Gilo, D. (2010). Excessive pricing, entry, assessment and investment: Lessons from the Mittal litigation. Antitrust Law Journal, 73, 873–879.
Zurück zum Zitat Gal, M. S. (2004). Monopoly pricing as an antitrust offense in the U.S. and the EC: Two systems of belief about monopoly? Antitrust Bulletin, 49, 343–384.CrossRef Gal, M. S. (2004). Monopoly pricing as an antitrust offense in the U.S. and the EC: Two systems of belief about monopoly? Antitrust Bulletin, 49, 343–384.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Motta, M., & de Streel, A. (2007). Chapter 2: Excessive pricing in competition law: Never say never? In The pros and cons of high prices. Kalmar: Swedish Competition Authority. Motta, M., & de Streel, A. (2007). Chapter 2: Excessive pricing in competition law: Never say never? In The pros and cons of high prices. Kalmar: Swedish Competition Authority.
Zurück zum Zitat O’Donoghue, R., & Padilla, A. J. (2013). The law and economics of Article 82 EC. Oxford: Hart Publishing. O’Donoghue, R., & Padilla, A. J. (2013). The law and economics of Article 82 EC. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Zurück zum Zitat Roberts, S. (2008). Assessing excessive pricing: The case of flat steel in South Africa. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(3), 871–891.CrossRef Roberts, S. (2008). Assessing excessive pricing: The case of flat steel in South Africa. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(3), 871–891.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Case 1 CPLR 37, Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007]. Case 1 CPLR 37, Harmony Gold Mining v Mittal Steel South Africa Limited [2007].
Zurück zum Zitat Case 011502 48/CR/Aug10, Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014]. Case 011502 48/CR/Aug10, Competition Commission v Sasol Chemical Industries Limited [2014].
Zurück zum Zitat Case 70/CAC/Apr07, Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v. Harmony Gold Mining [2009] ZACAC 1. Case 70/CAC/Apr07, Mittal Steel South Africa Limited v. Harmony Gold Mining [2009] ZACAC 1.
Zurück zum Zitat Case 131/CAC/Jun14, Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015] ZACAC 4. Case 131/CAC/Jun14, Sasol Chemical Industries Limited v Competition Commission [2015] ZACAC 4.
Zurück zum Zitat United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v The Commission of the European Communities [1978] 1 CMLR 429. United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v The Commission of the European Communities [1978] 1 CMLR 429.
Metadaten
Titel
Working Out the Standards for Excessive Pricing in South Africa
verfasst von
Liberty Mncube
Mfundo Ngobese
Copyright-Jahr
2018
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92831-9_6