A 90-day investigation into alleged antitrust violations carried out by Carrefour Indonesia has failed to find evidence to substantiate accusations that the French-based company engaged in predatory pricing.
The investigation concluded with no proof the company had engaged in a trading scheme that involved lowering prices of goods with the sole intent of hurting competitors in the retail industry.
Other findings in the investigation, however, suggested the company's corporate actions, mainly revolving around the acquisition of PT Alfa Retailindo in January, had led to a monopoly in Indonesia's retail market.
The investigation, begun out by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) in March, deemed the acquisition a violation of Article 28 of the law on monopolies and unlawful business practices, because it had a potential to create a market monopoly.
The investigation also found Carrefour currently controls more than 50 percent of the retail market, which is a violation of Article 17 of the law. The findings show Carrefour's market share in the upstream retail market stood at 67 percent as of June, up from 45 percent before the acquisition took place, while its share in the downstream retail market stood at 48 percent, up from 38 percent.
Carrefour's control over the two categories of the retail industry was allegedly coupled with an abuse of power through the utilization of various means with the sole intent of obstructing fair competition - a violation of Article 25.
All findings will be used by KPPU investigators to seek damages in a court hearing scheduled for Nov. 6. Violations of the monopoly law are punishable by fines of up to Rp 25 billion (US$2.67 million).
Ignatius Andy, a member of Carrefour Indonesia's legal team, argued the KPPU investigation was biased and relied on unfounded information.
"The KPPU seems to have used evidence and documents partially," he said Wednesday.
"They have in particular ignored those coming from our side. They chose to base their examination on other unqualified evidence instead."
The evidence, Ignatius went on, include data from online encyclopedia Wikipedia and online map Google Maps.
Information provided by Wikipedia is generated by the public, thus its validity is always in question, Ignatius said.
"Nobody can guarantee the validity of information from Wikipedia and Google Maps," he said.
"Wikipedia even puts a disclaimer that reads *Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.'"
Irawan Kadarman, Carrefour Indonesia's corporate communications director, added the KPPU had provided a minimal window of opportunity for the company by only once summoning it for questioning.
Ignatius said the conclusions from the "unfair" investigation hinted the final court verdict might not be in favor of Carrefour.
"If the KPPU does not clear us from all charges, we are ready to file an appeal against the verdict," he said.
KPPU spokesman Ahmad Junaidi refused to explain the reason behind the use of Wikipedia and Google Maps.
"It is *Carrefour's* right to object," he said.
"They already had the chance to raise their objections before the panel of judges."
In August 2005, the KPPU found Carrefour Indonesia guilty of violating contract terms with its suppliers and fined the company Rp 1.5 billion, a decision later upheld by an appeals court. (bbs)
