Table of Contents
The Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed the appeal filed by Reckitt Benckiser Pakistan in the Strepsils misleading advertising case, citing non-prosecution. The decision comes after the company’s legal counsel once again failed to appear before the bench, this time citing travel abroad as the reason for absence.
The Tribunal refused to entertain the request for adjournment, highlighting that a similar excuse had been presented at the previous hearing. As a result, the appeal has been dismissed, marking a firm stance by the tribunal against procedural delays.
Earlier, the bench had imposed a Rs. 50,000 fine on Reckitt Benckiser’s counsel for failing to appear at a prior hearing, further emphasizing the court’s disapproval of repeated absences.
The case stems from a 2021 penalty of Rs. 150 million imposed by the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) for deceptive marketing, where advertisements allegedly misrepresented Strepsils as a medicated product for sore throats, misleading consumers regarding its actual therapeutic nature.
Poultry Hatcheries File Appeals Against Rs. 155 Million Fine
In a separate development, the Tribunal has admitted individual appeals filed by eight poultry hatcheries, recently penalized by the CCP for anti-competitive conduct.
The CCP had imposed fines totaling Rs. 155 million for alleged cartelization and price manipulation in the sale of day-old chicks, a violation of the Competition Act.
These appeals have been scheduled for regular hearing on September 10, 2025, indicating that the poultry sector’s anti-competitive practices will now face detailed judicial scrutiny.
The outcome of this case is expected to have major implications for pricing structures and competitive transparency in Pakistan’s poultry industry, a critical sector for food security and rural employment.
Fatima Fertilizer Appeals CCP’s Rs. 375 Million Penalty
The Tribunal also heard two separate appeals filed by Fatima Fertilizer Limited against a recent CCP order that alleged price fixing in the fertilizer industry. The CCP had slapped a Rs. 375 million fine on six companies, including Fatima Fertilizer, along with their trade body, Fertilizer Manufacturers of Pakistan Advisory Council (FMPAC).
CAT has admitted both appeals and suspended the CCP’s order, pending full hearings. These cases, too, have been fixed for September 10, 2025, aligning with the poultry hatchery appeal timeline.
The fertilizer price-fixing case is a significant one, as it relates to input costs in agriculture, and any collusion or manipulation in this sector has far-reaching consequences for farmers, food inflation, and overall economic stability.
Unilever and Friesland Campina Engro Battle CCP Over “Frozen Dessert” Labeling
In another major competition case, Unilever Pakistan and Friesland Campina Engro (FCEPL) have concluded arguments in their appeal against the CCP’s December 2024 decision, which fined both companies Rs. 75 million each.
Banks Raise ATM Withdrawal Fees to Rs. 35
The dispute centers around the misuse of the term “ice cream” in the advertising and packaging of frozen dessert products. CCP argued that labeling frozen desserts as ice cream was misleading to consumers and violated fair competition principles.
The Competition Appellate Tribunal has reserved its judgment, and the ruling is expected to set a precedent for labeling norms, consumer transparency, and marketing practices in the food and dairy industry.
A ruling against the companies could compel significant changes in packaging and advertising strategies across the sector.
Stronger Enforcement from CCP and CAT Signals a Shift
The series of cases under review signals a more assertive enforcement environment in Pakistan’s competition landscape. The Competition Commission of Pakistan is showing a readiness to impose hefty fines and hold companies accountable for unfair trade practices, while the Appellate Tribunal appears less tolerant of procedural stalling or non-compliance.
From consumer protection in pharmaceuticals and food labeling to market regulation in agriculture, these cases collectively represent a broadening scope of competition law enforcement in Pakistan.
