On September 19, 2018, the NCLAT set aside an order of CCI against Hyundai Motor India Limited (‘Hyundai’).  CCI had imposed a penalty of Rs 87 crores (approximately US$12 million) on Hyundai for violation of the ‘resale price maintenance’ (‘RPM’) and ‘tie-in’ provisions of the Act. CCI had decided that (i) by setting and implementing a ‘Discount Control Mechanism’ on its dealers, Hyundai had implemented an RPM, and (ii) by mandating its dealers to use recommended lubricants (‘tie-in agreements’), Hyundai had implemented a tie-in agreement (‘CCI Order’).[1]NCLAT in its assessment did not discuss CCI’s substantive findings against Hyundai on RPM and tie-in agreements in detail. CCI in its assessment had identified two relevant markets, namely (i) ‘upstream market of inter-brand sale of passenger cars in India’ (‘Upstream RM’) and (ii) ‘the downstream market for the dealership and distribution of Hyundai cars in India’ (‘Downstream RM’). As per NCLAT, in identifying the relevant markets, CCI had failed to consider (i) the factors under Section 19(6) of the Act such as regulatory trade barriers, local specification requirements, etc. in determining the relevant geographic market; and (ii) factors under Section 19(7) of the Act, such as the physical characteristics and end-use of goods, and consumer preferences, etc. in determining the relevant product market, respectively.Notably, NCLAT observed that CCI couldn’t merely rely on the findings of the DG’s investigation report in order to establish a contravention under Section 27 of the Act and was also required to make an independent analysis of the evidence that was available on record.Further, NCLAT noted that the CCI Order was self-contradictory, and reflected non-application of mind by CCI. NCLAT also observed that CCI and DG had failed in supporting their findings that Hyundai had penalized its dealers for not acting in accordance by implementing tie-in agreements, by providing cogent evidence in this regard.  Moreover, NCLAT observed that CCI and the DG should have taken into consideration the fact that it was normal for car dealers of all companies to make recommendations regards the use of a particular quality of lubricants and oils based on the type of vehicle.[1] FX Enterprise Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. & St. Antony’s Cars Pvt. Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor India Limited, Case Nos. 36 & 82 of 2014 (Order dated June 14, 2017)