India antitrust watchdog issues advisories to DP World, Maersk units operating at Mumbai port

A DP World spokesperson said the company had not received any such order from the Indian watchdog, but it was ‘committed to ensuring’ it complies with all laws. (Reuters)
Updated 18 January 2019
0

India antitrust watchdog issues advisories to DP World, Maersk units operating at Mumbai port

  • The Competition Commission of India last year ordered a probe into suspected antitrust violations by DP World and Maersk units
  • The antitrust dispute at the JNPT is based on so-called inter-terminal transfers

NEW DELHI: India’s antitrust watchdog has ordered Denmark’s A.P. Moller-Maersk and Dubai’s DP World to withdraw certain customer advisories which it said could hamper growth of the country’s largest container port in Mumbai, a document seen by Reuters showed.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) last year ordered a probe into suspected antitrust violations by DP World and Maersk units at the terminals they operate at state-owned Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT).
Handling 66 million tons of cargo in the last fiscal year to March, JNPT is critical to India’s international trade. The port handles more than half of India’s traffic in shipping containers each year.
The probe was ordered as the CCI found merit in a complaint filed by Singapore’s PSA International, which alleged the rival duo had created barriers to hinder the growth of PSA’s terminal by colluding on certain charges they levy at the port.
Though the terminal operators handle each other’s containers to help boost the port’s efficiency, PSA had alleged that DP World and Maersk last year issued advisories aimed at discouraging port users from sending PSA’s containers to their terminals.
In an order issued by the CCI on Jan. 15, the watchdog ordered Maersk and DP World units to withdraw those advisories, saying it “smacks of anti-competitive” conduct.
The advisories, if not withdrawn, would cause “irretrievable damage or losses” not only to PSA, and would not augur well for the port’s development, according to the order. It has not been made public.
“This is likely to generate unwarranted uncertainty, chaos, discontent and anxiety among shipping lines and customers,” the CCI said.
The order is only an interim measure, and the wider probe continues.
A DP World spokesperson said the company had not received any such order from the Indian watchdog, but it was “committed to ensuring” it complies with all laws.
A.P. Moller-Maersk, the world’s biggest container shipping group, did not respond to queries. PSA, which is owned by Singapore government-owned investment fund Temasek Holdings, declined to comment.
The antitrust dispute at the JNPT is based on so-called inter-terminal transfers.
Under the system, freight trains arriving at JNPT typically carry containers destined for several terminals, but stop at just one that handles all the cargo on a given day. Other operators then collect their containers by truck for loading at their own terminals. A similar procedure is followed, in reverse, when imported containers are unloaded.
DP World’s advisory had said the inter-terminal operations with PSA were “inefficient and unviable.” Maersk had said its terminal “shall not be responsible” for handling containers to and from PSA-terminal bound trains.
Both the companies denied PSA’s allegations while arguing to the CCI that the advisories were based on “commercial justifications,” the order said.
Units of Maersk, DP World and PSA operate four of the JNPT port’s five terminals, with the fifth owned by the government. The PSA terminal, inaugurated in February, is planned to be the largest, expected to nearly double JNPT’s capacity.


Sixteen states sue Trump over border wall emergency

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, right, accompanied by Gov. Gavin Newsom, said California will probably sue President Donald Trump over his emergency declaration to fund a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border Friday, Feb. 15, 2019, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP)
Updated 19 February 2019
0

Sixteen states sue Trump over border wall emergency

  • The complaint added that the Department of Homeland Security had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to evaluate the environmental impact of the wall in California and New Mexico

SAN FRANCISCO: Sixteen US states sued President Donald Trump’s administration Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to fund a wall on the southern border with Mexico, saying the move violated the constitution.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in California, said the president’s order was contrary to the Presentment Clause that outlines legislative procedures and the Appropriations Clause, which defines Congress as the final arbiter of public funds.
The move had been previously announced by Xavier Becerra the attorney general of California who said his state and others had legal standing because they risked losing moneys intended for military projects, disaster assistance and other purposes.
Several Republican senators have decried the emergency declaration, saying it establishes a dangerous precedent and amounts to executive overreach.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia are party to the complaint seeking an injunction.
“Use of those additional federal funds for the construction of a border wall is contrary to Congress’s intent in violation of the US Constitution, including the Presentment Clause and Appropriations Clause,” the complaint said.
It added that Trump had “veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”
“Congress has repeatedly rebuffed the president’s insistence to fund a border wall, recently resulting in a record 35-day partial government shutdown over the border wall dispute,” the document read.
“After the government reopened, Congress approved, and the president signed into law, a $1.375 billion appropriation for fencing along the southern border, but Congress made clear that funding could not be used to build President Trump’s proposed border wall.”
The complaint added that the Department of Homeland Security had violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to evaluate the environmental impact of the wall in California and New Mexico.
Friday’s declaration enables the president to divert funds from the Pentagon’s military construction budget and other sources.