Palm Oil Cartel Case [Wilmar, Musim Mas, SMART, Salim]

Wilmar, Musim Mas, SMART, Salim

 

Source: http://eng.kppu.go.id/palm-oil-cartel-case/

 

The Commission for The Supervisory of Business Competition (KPPU) has performed investigation and has set verdict on the case number: 24/KPPU-I/2009 of alleged violation against Article 4, Article 5, and Article 11 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of  Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. Alleged violation is related to the Palm Oil Industry in Indonesia. Assembly Commission in this case consists of Ir. Dedie S.Martadisastra, SE, MM, as Chairman of the Assembly, Yoyo Arifardhani, SH, MM LL.M and Didik Akhmadi, Ak., M. Com. respectively as members.

Based on the investigation, the firms suspected of committing an violation and was determined as reported is as follows:

1. PT Multimas Vegetable Asahan, (Reported I);

2. PT Sinar Alam Permai, (Reported Party II);

3. PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia, (Reported Party III);

4. PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, (Reported Party IV);

5. Agrindo PT Indah Persada, (Reported V);

6. PT Musim Mas, (Reported Party VI);

7. PT Intibenua Perkasatama, (Reported Party VII);

8. PT Megasurya Mas, (Reported Party VIII);

9. PT Agro Makmur Raya, (Reported IX);

10. PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, (Party X);

11. PT Indo Karya Internusa, (Reported XI);

12. PT Permata Hijau Sawit, (Party XII);

13. PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari (Reported XIII);

14. PT Nubika Jaya, (Reported Party IV);

15. PT Smart, Tbk, (Reported V);

16. PT Salim (Reported XVI);

17. PT Bina Karya Prima, (Reported XVII);

18. PT Tunas New Lampung Tbk, (Reported XVIII);

19. PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh, (Reported Party IX);

20. PT Pacific Palmoil Industry, (Reported XX);

21. PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya, (Reported XI).

Case No. 24/KPPU-I/2009 begins with the monitoring activities undertaken by the Secretariat of the Commission and reported in Commission Meeting September 15, 2009. Then the Commission decided to follow up monitoring result to the Preliminary Investigation.

KPPU assess the cooking oil industry is an industry that has strategic value because it serves as one of the basic needs of Indonesian society. Development of the cooking oil industry in Indonesia has put the cooking oil with palm oil as raw material commodities to the most widely consumed by society. It is caused by the low availability of raw materials other than oil palm. In addition, the characteristics of palm oil has a wide range of derivative products has also experienced growth including the palm oil industry. However, the cooking oil industry market structure is oligopoly has pushed the behavior of some business operators cooking oil producers to determine the movement of prices so that prices are not responsive to the CPO price movements, whereas CPO is the main ingredient of the oil. This is reflected in the time period 2007 to 2009. On the basis of this, there were indications KPPU suspected violation of Article 4, Article 5 and Article 11 of Law No. 5 Year 1999.

Based on the Preliminary Investigation Report, Report on the Follow-up, mail, documents and other evidence, including the response / defense of the Party, the Assembly Commission to assess and conclude whether there is any violation of Law No. 5 Year 1999 which conducted by the Reported Party.

Before concluding whether there is any violation, The Assembly Commission considered the following:

1. Relevant Market;

• Based on the highly visible product characteristics there are significant differences between bulk cooking oil and branded cooking oil.
• Furthermore, besides differences in the characteristics, the Assembly Commission is also consider with the differences in price levels between bulk cooking oil and branded cooking oil where branded cooking oil have a higher price level compared with bulk cooking oil.
• Differences in price levels of both products greatly affect the product buyer market segments, where branded cooking oil is more widely consumed by the consumers belonging to middle and upper, while the bulk cooking oil is more widely consumed by the consumers belonging to the lower middle.
• The difference in cooking oil buyer segment is reinforced by the conclusions the review, conducted by The Nielsen Company (filed by the defense Reported XVI) which states that consumers in large cities with high income tend to consume only bottled cooking oil (branded). This proves the fact that there are differences between consumer segments cooking oil containers.
• Differences consumer market segments both products because of differences of the characteristics and level of cooking oil product prices, especially for the analysis were conducted only on product branded cooking oil the premium of each Party to be compared as equals.
• Therefore, these facts prove that the bulk cooking oil and cooking oil containers (branded) in the case is not in the same market.
• In connection with determining the geographic market, the Assembly concurred with the Commission LHPL geographic market in which covers the whole of Indonesia. It was based on the fact of the ability of each Party to sell in other regions outside the territory concerned production of cooking oil.
• In connection with these geographic markets, XIII Party in the defense or a response stating that the sales data submitted by the sales data for purposes outside the territory of Indonesia (export) because Reported XIII only produce most of the cooking oil or more than 99% for export purposes . Therefore, on the basis of these responses as well as defense or evidence submitted by the Assembly Commission XIII Party believes that the data does not need to be considered for further analysis.

2. About the Producers and the Characteristics of Oil Palm Industry in Indonesia

• Before discussing about the market structure of cooking oil palm in Indonesia, the Assembly Commission to outline facts related to the characteristics of producers of cooking oil palm in Indonesia, where according LHPL company stated that the comparison between the integrated palm oil (upstream to downstream) with a company that is not integrated as follows, integrated by 68% and 32% are not integrated.
• Assembly Commission assess Reported that there were several affiliated with each other and / or joined in a group of businessmen who have business activities ranging from integrated oil palm plantation, palm oil processing to produce cooking oil. Furthermore, when mapped the business group associated with this case are as follows:

Business Group Wilmar Group (Reported):

1. PT Multimas Vegetable shavings

2. PT Sinar Alam Permai

3. PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia

4. PT Wilmar Bio Sulawesi

Five. PT Indah Persada Agrindo

Musim Mas Group (Reported):

1. PT Musim Mas

2. PT Intibenua Perkasatama

3. PT Megasurya Mas

4. PTAgro Raya Makmur

5. PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry

6. PT Indo Karya Internusa

Permata Hijau Group (Reported):

1. PT Permata Hijau Sawit

2. PT Nubika Jaya

Sinar Mas Group (Reported): PT Smart, Tbk

Salim Group (Reported): PT Salim

Sungai Budi Group (Reported): PT Tunas New Lampung Tbk

BEST Group (Reported): PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh

HSA Group (Teralpor):

1.PT Pacific Palmindo Industry

2.PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya

3.PT Bina Karya Prima

• Characteristics of palm oil industry which tends integrated in order to generate its own power input and output control over the product because it has the power to become the supplier of the product itself and become a seller for its own products. In addition, the integrated oil companies have purchasing power (buying power) and power sales (selling power) compared to companies that are not integrated.
• Based on the evidence the Commission Council to know the Reported production capacity.
• Furthermore, if the company is separated between the producers of bulk cooking oil containers with cooking oil (branded), it can be divided as follows:

Bulk Edible Oil Manufacturers

1.Wilmar Group

2.Musim Mas Group

3.Permata Hijau Group

4.Sinar Mas Group / PT Smart, Tbk

5.Sungai Budi Group / PT Tunas New Lampung

6.BEST Group

7.PT Pacific Palmindo Industry

8.PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya

Manufacturers of Edible Oil Packaging (branded):

1.Wilmar group

2.Musim Mas Group

3.Sinar Mas Group / PT Smart Tbk

4.Salim Group / PT Salim

5.PT Bina Karya Prima

6.Sungai Budi Group / PT Tunas New Lampung

7.PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya

• That the further to the division of markets between bulk cooking oil and cooking oil containers (branded) was compared with the total national consumption of the Assembly Commission know their market share – both for the individual product Bulk Cooking Oil and Edible Oil Packaging (branded).
• On the basis of this, the Assembly Commission believes that good cooking oil market structure of bulk and packaged (branded) is an oligopoly, because only mastered by a few businesses, namely:
• Wilmar Group, Musim Mas Group, PT Smart, Tbk and PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya (2007) or PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh (2008) for bulk cooking oil.
• PT Salim, Wilmar Group, PT Smart, Tbk, and PT Bina Karya Prima for packaging cooking oil (branded).

3. About the Level of Market Concentration;

• There is a cooking oil sales data from the Party so that the data is more indicative of the fact because it reflects the realization of their respective Reported sales.
• Based on data from the Reported sales volume compared with the total national consumption data are used to measure the concentration of cooking oil market in Indonesia, namely:

Bulk Cooking Oil;

Year	CR4	HHI
2007	59.15%	1160.222
2008	60.13%	1400.921

Edible oil packaging (branded);

Year	CR4	HHI
2007	98%	3951.37
2008	97%	4190.62

• Based on the calculation of market concentration, then by using the approach of the Commission Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 About Pranotifikasi Merger, Consolidation and Acquisition and FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines can be concluded that the bulk cooking oil market is concentrated enough (moderately concentrated) while packing oil (branded) very concentrated (highly concentrated) with an increasing trend.

4. About Price Parallelism;

• In determining whether there is any parallelism price in an industry can be done by statistical methods that test Homogeneity of Variance.
• The statistical tests conducted to compare the variance of the price of cooking oil each company, so they can find the same pattern of price movements between companies. If the price changes of every businesses have a probability below 5%, then Ho is rejected and no price parallelism, but on the contrary, if the probability value greater than 5%, then change the price variation between the same company or no price parallelism.
• Therefore, Homogeneity of variance test to be done on the selling price of cooking oil producers (the Reported) to discover whether there is any price parallelism.
• Based on the test probability value, the Assembly Commission believes that there is a fact that there is parallelism in the market price of bulk and bottled cooking oil (branded) because the probability value greater than 5%.
• In connection with a response or defense Reported XV who stated that price parallelism is not enough to prove the existence of price fixing or cartel price, then the Commission Council needs to give special consideration or explanation on indirect evidence.

5. About Indirect Evidence;

• In the competition law of evidence, proving the existence of a cartel can be done by using only indirect evidence.
• In this case, indirect evidence in the form;

i. Evidence of Communication (communication evidence):

Evidence of communication can be a fact of attendance and / or communications among competitors notwithstanding the absence of the substance of the meeting and / or communication. In this case, attendance and / or communications either directly or indirectly made by the Party on February 29, 2008 and dated February 9, 2009. Even in the meetings and / or communication is discussed, among others, about the price, production capacity, and production cost structure.

ii. Evidence of the economy (economics evidence):

There are 2 (two) types of economic evidence is evidence related to the structure and behavior. In this case, the cooking oil industry both bulk and packaged to have a concentrated market structure in some businesses (oligopoly). The economic evidence in the form of behavior reflected in the existence of price parallelism and facilitating practices carried out through price signaling in the promotion in the not same.

• Practice proving the existence of a cartel by using indirect evidence from these cases is reflected in several countries including Steel Cartel Case (Brazil), São Paulo Case Airlines (Brazil).

6. Loss Consumer

• That on LHPL note a decrease of CPO prices very significantly during the period April 2008 to December 2008.
• That the decline in CPO prices were not responded proportionally by the Party in the sale price of cooking oil either bulk or packaged (branded).
• That no responsive movement of oil prices set the Party on the decline in CPO prices has resulted in losses for consumers to obtain the price of cooking oil is lower because the contribution of palm oil as the main raw material is 87% of the total production cost of cooking oil.
• That the facts mentioned above, the Assembly Commission can measure the consumer loss by calculating the difference between the average sales price of cooking oil with an average cost of each CPO Reported.
• That the Assembly Commission subsequently comparing the difference between the average price at the period January 2007 until March 2008 with the period April 2008 to December 2008.
• That based on these calculations, the fact of Assembly Commission obtained customer losses during the period April 2008 until December 2008 at least Rp. 1.270.263.632.175 (one trillion two hundred seventy billion two hundred and sixty-three million six hundred thirty two thousand one hundred seventy-five rupiah) for packaging and cooking oil products amounted to USD. 374 298 034 526 (three hundred and seventy-four billion two hundred ninety eight million, thirty-four thousand five hundred and twenty six rupiah) for bulk cooking oil products.

Considering that in this case, the Commission Council found facts unavailability of data production and palm oil trade volume in the domestic market. Therefore, the Commission Council recommended to the Commission to provide advice to the Department of Trade and the Ministry of Industry to promote the availability of such data because it is very beneficial to the supervision, training and development of the relevant industries to national economic interests

Based on the evidence, facts and conclusions and to Article 43 paragraph (3) of Law No. 5 Year 1999, the Commission Council decided:

1. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party III: PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Reported Party V: PT Indah Persada Agrindo, Reported Party VI: PT Musim Mas, Reported VII: PT Intibenua Perkasatama, Reported Party VIII: PT Megasurya Mas, Reported Party IX: PT Agro Makmur Raya, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Reported XI: PT Indo Karya Internusa, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Reported XIX: PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh, and Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya legally and convincingly violating Article 4 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bulk cooking oil market;
2. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Reported XVI: PT Salim, and Reported XVII: PT Bina Karya Prima legally and convincingly violating Article 4 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bottled cooking oil market;
3. Stating Reported XII: PT Permata Hijau Sawit, Reported XIII: PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari, Reported XIV: PT Nubika Jaya, Party XVIII: New PT Tunas Lampung Tbk, and Reported XX: PT Pacific Industrial Palmindo not proven violating Article 4 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 in the market for bulk cooking oil;
4. Stating Reported X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Party XVIII: PT Tunas new Lampung Tbk, and Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya was not proven violating Article 4 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 in the packaging market cooking oil;
5. Stating Reported Stating I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Three: PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Reported Party V: PT Indah Persada Agrindo, Reported VI PT Musim Mas , Reported Party VII: PT Intibenua Perkasatama, Reported Party VIII: PT Megasurya Mas, Reported Party IX: PT Agro Makmur Raya, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Reported XI: PT Indo Karya Internusa, Reported XII PT Permata Hijau Sawit, Reported XIV : PT Nubika Jaya, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Party XVIII: New PT Tunas Lampung Tbk, Reported XIX: PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh, Reported XX: PT Pacific Palmindo Reported Industrial and XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya legally and convincingly violating Article 5 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bulk cooking oil market;
6. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Reported XVI: PT Salim Pratama, and Reported XVII: PT Bina Karya Prima, Party XVIII: a new PT Tunas Lampung Tbk and Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya legally and convincingly violating Article 5 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for packaging cooking oil market;
7. Stating Reported XIII: PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari not proven violating Article 5 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bulk cooking oil market;
8. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Reported XVI: PT Salim Pratama, and Reported XVII: PT Bina Karya Prima, Party XVIII: a new PT Tunas Lampung Tbk and Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya legally and convincingly violating Article 11 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for packaging cooking oil market;
9. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party III: PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia, Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Reported Party V: PT Indah Persada Agrindo, Reported Party VI: PT Musim Mas, Reported VII: PT Intibenua Perkasatama, Reported Party VIII: PT Megasurya Mas, Reported Party IX: PT Agro Makmur Raya, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Reported XI: PT Indo Karya Internusa, Reported XII: PT Permata Hijau Sawit, Reported XIII: PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari, Reported XIV: PT Nubika Jaya, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Party XVIII: New PT Tunas Lampung Tbk, Reported XIX: PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh, Reported XX: PT Pacific Palmindo Reported Industrial and XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya was not proven violating Article 11 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bulk cooking oil market;
10. Punishing Party I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition;
11. Punishing Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai to pay a fine of Rp. 20,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
12. Punishing Party III: PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia to pay a fine of Rp. 1,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
13. Punishes Reported IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
14. Punishes Reported V: PT Indah Persada Agrindo to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be deposited into State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
15. Punishes Reported VI: PT Musim Mas to pay a fine of Rp. 15,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
16. Punishes Reported VII: PT Intibenua Perkasatama to pay a fine of Rp. 2,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
17. Punishes Reported VIII: PT Megasurya Mas to pay a fine of Rp. 15,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
18. Punishes Reported Party IX: PT Agro Makmur Raya to pay a fine of Rp. 5,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
19. Punishes Reported X: PT Mikie Oleo Bio Industry to pay a fine of Rp. 20,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
20. Punishing Party XI: PT Indo Karya Internusa to pay a fine of Rp. 15,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
21. Punishes Reported XII: PT Permata Hijau Sawit to pay a fine of Rp. 5,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
22. Punishes Reported XIV: PT Nubika Jaya to pay a fine of Rp. 2,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
23. Punishing Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 that must be remitted to the State Treasury as Violation Fines Income Deposit on the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission of the Government with the Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Violation Fines on Competition Field);
24. Punishes Reported XVI: PT Salim to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
25. Punishes Reported XVII: PT Bina Karya Prima to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
26. Punishing Party XVIII: New PT Tunas Lampung Tbk to pay a fine of Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition)
27. Punishes Reported XIX: PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh to pay a fine of Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission by the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field Competition)
28. Punishes Reported XX: PT Pacific Palmindo Industries to pay a fine of Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition)
29. Punishes Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya to pay a fine of Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition)

Investigation and preparation of the decision on case No.. 24/KPPU-I/2009 conducted by KPPU with the principles of independence, that is not impartial anyone because KPPU role as carrier mandate of monitoring of the implementation of Law No. 5 / 1999 of trying to realize the same business certainty for every business actor and to ensure fair competition and effective.

The verdict was read in the Assembly Commission which declared open for public on Tuesday, on May 4, 2010 in Investigation Room III, 1st floor KPPU Building, Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No.36, Central Jakarta.