AL GHAZI TRACTORS LIMITED vs COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2026 CLD 686 COMPETITION-APPELLATE-TRIBUN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AL GHAZI TRACTORS LIMITED VS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Ss. 10 & 30---Deceptive marketing practice, allegation of---Ascertainment---Competition Commission of Pakistan (Commission), responsibilities of---Scope---Show-Cause Notice was issued to the Tractor Manufacturer /Undertaking (Appellant) alleging that it had made a high sounded claim i.e. with 30% extra diesel saving as compared to other Tractors, which amounted to misleading and deceptive marketing practice---Case of the Appellant was that such claim was premised on a Report/exercise ('report-in-question') carried out by the Agriculture Mechanization and Research Institute (AMRI), whereas it was the case of the Commission that when AMRI was approached via email ('email-in-question'), they stated that they had not issued any document or certificate to the Appellant showing said high sounded claim---Validity---Perusal of email-in-question reflected that the same (email) was not a proper response; firstly, to the claim of the Appellant; and secondly as to the query of the Commission regarding veracity of the report-in-question---It reflected that email-in-question referred to an altogether different situation (regarding some training of Master Trainers on energy conservation) and did not say that AMRI had not issued the report-in-question, or no such exercise was carried out for comparison purpose---Different Annexures attached with Report-in-question showed the comparison as claimed by the Appellant---It was nobody's case that the Report-in-question was fake---Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Commission under S. 30 of the Competition Act, 2010, by way of a show cause notice and showing its intention to impose penalty could not have been finalized without a proper notice to AMRI asking them to file detailed reply with specific response to the claim of the Appellant specially in respect of said annexures---Name of the engineers and responsible officers were mentioned in Report-in-question, hence, it was incumbent upon the Commission to take proper input from AMRI while the Appellant relied upon the report-in-question in its advertisement and never claimed that AMRI had issued any accredited certificate in its favor---There is a marked difference in certification and issuing a report based on some survey or exercise---Thus, the response of AMRI to said effect was not relevant and perhaps had been misunderstood---The advertisement was qualified and was based on the report which had not been denied before the Competition Appellate Tribunal---Therefore, before imposition of such heavy penalty, the Commission ought to have issued a specific notice to AMRI for proper assistance, and the Appellant should also have been confronted with such response of AMRI as the entire crux of the matter was dependent on the Report-in-question---The Commission also failed to take note that the comparison exercise in question referred to other brands of tractors as well, however, no further investigation was made in said regard---In view of said reasons, facts and circumstances, Competition Appellate Tribunal, while setting aside impugned order, transmitted back the case to the Competition Commission which would conduct its proceedings from the stage of show-cause notice afresh while engaging the Agricultural Mechanization Research Institute of Punjab---Appeal, filed by Undertaking, was allowed accordingly.

AL GHAZI TRACTORS LIMITED vs COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2026 CLD 686 COMPETITION-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD