NEW DELHI, JUNE 16 2025 –In a significant ruiling The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint filed against Hindalco Industries and Vedanta, which alleged abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, in the Indian refined copper market.
The informants had accused the two companies—who collectively hold nearly 75% of India’s refined copper market—of acting in concert to impose unfair commercial terms, including marketing policies that lacked pricing transparency and aggressive contract enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HINDALCO AND VEDANTA
The complaint alleged that buyers of refined copper products such as copper wire rods and cathodes from Hindalco and Vedanta were required to:
Book orders at an “unknown price” tied to the London Metal Exchange (LME) cash settlement rate.
Accept additional terms such as carry-over charges and the right of suppliers to liquidate booked quantities if not lifted in time.
Operate under a marketing framework where sellers engage in back-to-back hedging.
The informants claimed that they had placed substantial orders to meet obligations with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and the Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE). However, the COVID-19 lockdown prevented them from lifting 933.13 metric tonnes (MT) from Hindalco and 92.28 MT from Vedanta. Despite the invoices being within permissible payment limits and bank guarantees still valid, both suppliers invoked guarantees worth ₹50.35 crore in July 2020.
According to the complaint, this premature invocation of guarantees led to overdrafts, account freezes, and eventual insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
CCI: NO CASE OF ABUSE UNDER SECTION 4
The CCI rejected the plea for investigation, stating that while the Indian copper market exhibits duopolistic traits, the Competition Act, 2002 does not recognize collective dominance. Hence, alleged joint conduct by Hindalco and Vedanta was outside the purview of Section 4.
“Several chances were given by OP-1 to Informant No.1 for lifting the material, and only after the failure… it was de-priced by OP-1.”
— CCI Observation based on Hindalco’s email correspondence
MARKETING POLICIES NOT FOUND UNFAIR
Responding to allegations about unfair contract terms and pricing mechanisms, the CCI found no violation:
“Such condition in the commodity market which is prone to price risks cannot be considered to be unfair.”
— CCI Order
The Commission emphasized that risk-sharing in commodity markets is common and that default by a buyer cannot form the basis for unfairness:
“The buyer who has not followed agreed terms and conditions of the contract cannot take advantage of its own default.”
— CCI Statement
PREMATURE INVOCATION OF BANK GUARANTEES A CIVIL DISPUTE
On the issue of bank guarantees being invoked during the pandemic, the CCI noted that:
“The matter is a civil and contractual dispute, which did not merit intervention by the Commission.”Accordingly, the Commission declined to initiate an investigation, effectively closing the complaint against both Hindalco and Vedanta.
