Ministry to redefine monopoly practices

Medium and large-sized enterprises should beware of market dominance practices, as the Commerce Ministry will soon amend the market monopoly conditions to ensure fair business practices and competitiveness under the upcoming market integration in Asean.

The ministry’s Trade Competition Act Committee will give a new definition to market dominance practices by lowering the proportion of market dominance to 30 per cent of market share, and annual sales of at least Bt500 million. Or, if the top three enterprises in the same business have a combined market share of more than 75 per cent or individual revenue of more than Bt500 million a year, they could be accused of market dominance.

Deputy Commerce Minister Apiradi Tantraporn said the plan to amend the definition of market dominance share and revenue is aimed at ensuring a level playing field in each business amidst seamless trade in the region and globally.

Under this new definition, any business that has market share above 30 per cent and revenue more than Bt500 million per year, would be subjected to close inspection if there were complaints of market dominance practices hurting other traders or consumers.

Under the current Trade Competition Act (1999), market dominance is defined as having both a market share in the previous year of at least 50 per cent, and annual sales of at least Bt1 billion. 

Apiradi said the committee would not only consider market dominance practice based on share, but also the number of businesses in each area, market concentration, and subsidiaries.

The committee would also consider amending the act on other issues, including enforcing this law to cover all state enterprises and private firms, increase the role of the committee in enforcing the Trade Competition Act, to provide clear guidelines, to issue a leniency program, and to stringently enforce the law.

The existing law applies only to private companies. 

In addition, the committee has also agreed to set up five subcommittees to consider cases related to unfair competition complaints. There have been complaints of price dumping against a large egg producer; ice producers allegedly colluding to set the retail price; unfair trade practices by a rubber trader; and a case of unfair trade practice in agricultural machinery.

The subcommittee is scheduled to conclude these cases in the next six months.