Competition Act, 1998 (Act No. 89 of 1998)NoticesGuidelines for the Determination of Administrative Penalties for Prohibited Practices2. Introduction |
| 2.1 | The Commission regards administrative penalties as an important tool in enforcing the Act. The primary objective of administrative penalties is deterrence. Administrative penalties serve as a specific deterrent against future anti-competitive behaviour by firms that have contravened the Act and as a general deterrent to other firms that may consider engaging in anti-competitive conduct. |
| 2.2 | The Act provides for administrative penalties to be imposed on firms for engaging in conduct that is prohibited in terms of sections 4(1)(b), 5(2) or 8(a), (b) or (d) of the Act and for engaging in conduct that is substantially a repeat by the same firm of conduct previously found by the Tribunal to be a prohibited practice in terms of sections 4(1)(a), 5(1), 8(c) or 9(1) of the Act. |
| 2.3 | The Tribunal and the CAC have now provided guidance on how administrative penalties ought to be determined. This has culminated in a specific six-step methodology developed by the Tribunal3 and the CAC.4 The Commission issues these guidelines setting out its interpretation of the application of the Tribunal's methodology in consent or settlement agreements as well as in recommending the imposition of administrative penalties before the Tribunal and the CAC. |
| 3 | Competition Commission v. Aveng (Africa) Limited t/a Steeledale, Reinforcing Mesh Solutions (Pty) Ltd, Vulcania Reinforcing (Pty) Ltd and BRC Mesh Reinforcing (Pty) Ltd Case No.: 84/CR/Dec09 |
| 4 | Reinforcing Mesh Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Vulcania Reinforcing (Pty) Ltd v. Competition Commission 119 & 120/CAC/May2013 |