NEW DELHI — The Competition Commission of India on Thursday imposed a penalty of Rs 27.38 crore on chipmaker Intel Corporation for enforcing an India-specific warranty policy for boxed microprocessors that it found to be anti-competitive.
The watchdog said the policy had been in force for nearly eight years and initially warranted a penalty equivalent to 8 percent of Intel’s average relevant turnover. However, after taking into account mitigating factors, including Intel’s decision to discontinue the policy with effect from April 1, 2024, the Commission reduced the final penalty to Rs 27.38 crore.
In addition to the fine, the Commission directed Intel to widely publicise the withdrawal of the India-specific warranty policy and submit a compliance report.
The order was issued under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002, after the Commission found Intel in violation of Section 4 of the Act, which deals with abuse of dominant position.
According to the CCI, the case originated from a complaint filed by Matrix Info Systems Private Limited under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act. The informant alleged that Intel amended its warranty policy for India with effect from April 25, 2016, under which warranty claims for boxed microprocessors in India were accepted only if the products were purchased from authorised Indian distributors.
As a result of this policy, Intel declined to honor warranty claims for boxed microprocessors purchased from its authorised distributors in other countries, instead directing customers to seek warranty services in the country of purchase.
The Commission held that Intel was dominant in the relevant market for boxed microprocessors for desktops in India. It found the India-specific warranty policy to be discriminatory when compared with Intel’s warranty practices in China, Australia, and other global markets.
The CCI also concluded that the policy restricted consumer choice and hindered parallel imports, causing an appreciable adverse effect on Indian consumers. On these grounds, the Commission ruled that Intel’s conduct amounted to an abuse of dominance under the Competition Act. (Source: IANS)
