CCI Closes Abuse of Dominance Case Against Arthur Flury India in SNSA Supply

April 7, 2026 : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed a complaint alleging abuse of dominant position by M/s Arthur Flury India Pvt. Ltd. in the supply of Short Neutral Section Assemblies (SNSA), finding no prima facie violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The order, passed under Section 26(2) by a coram comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anurag, came in Kshitij Srivastava v. M/s Arthur Flury India Pvt. Ltd. (Case No. 40 of 2025).

The information was filed by Kshitij Srivastava, who alleged that Arthur Flury India, after being approved as an indigenous supplier by the Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO) on 06 May 2023, effectively became the sole eligible bidder in railway tenders due to procurement restrictions under the “Make in India” policy. It was contended that the company exploited this position by engaging in excessive and discriminatory pricing, charging higher rates to Indian Railways while offering lower prices to EPC contractors.

The Commission defined the relevant market as the market for SNSA in India, noting that SNSA is a critical, non-substitutable safety component used in railway electrification systems. While it acknowledged that the opposite party held a dominant position between March 2023 and December 2024, the CCI reiterated that dominance per se does not constitute abuse absent exclusionary or exploitative conduct.

On the issue of procurement, the Commission observed that specifications and vendor approvals were determined by RDSO, leaving no scope for the opposite party to influence tender conditions. It further noted that entry barriers were not insurmountable, as several developmental vendors were in the pipeline and a new supplier was approved in December 2024, demonstrating that competition was feasible and did materialise over time.

Addressing allegations of discriminatory pricing, the Commission distinguished between supplies made to Indian Railways and EPC contractors. It found that EPC contractors operate in a more flexible procurement environment and that price differences could be attributed to commercial factors such as order size, logistics, and negotiation dynamics. The variation in pricing was not substantial enough to indicate discriminatory conduct.

The Commission’s analysis of pricing trends, including the detailed tender data table (page 8 of the order), showed that price fluctuations corresponded with legitimate factors such as currency exchange rates, transportation costs, and order quantities. Bulk orders were often priced lower, consistent with standard commercial practice. The Commission also noted that prices declined after the entry of a new competitor in December 2024, indicating effective market functioning.

In conclusion, the CCI held that the allegations of excessive and discriminatory pricing were unsubstantiated and that the conduct of Arthur Flury India did not amount to abuse of dominant position. Accordingly, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act.