The Competition Tribunal dismissed a lawsuit by Metalúrgica Silcosil Limitada (“Silcosil”) against Masisa S.A. (“Masisa”) and Masisa Componentes SpA (“Componentes”), stating that the defendants did not have a dominant position in the relevant markets, therefore were unable to incur in the accused abuses of dominant position.
In the ruling, the Tribunal stated that the controversy concerned two relevant markets: the production and commercialization of melamine chipboard panels (“upstream”); and the design, manufacture and commercialization of “ready to assemble” furniture (hereinafter, “RTA furniture”) made from the aforementioned panels (“downstream”).
The Tribunal, given Componentes’ low market share in the downstream market, ruled out the existence of a predatory pricing and unfair competition conducts.
Regarding the margin squeeze charge, the Tribunal held that there was no dominant position in the upstream market, since the panels from the different producers were substitutes among themselves, Masisa’s market share has decreased significantly during the last years and that the imports of this input set forth a “roof” that limits the prices that can be charged in the market.
Finally the Tribunal stated that the cross subsidy charge does not constitute an anticompetitive conduct by itself, thus it was not analyzed as such.
Judge Saavedra concurred to the decision, but was of the opinion that there were doubts regarding Masisa’s lack of dominance in the upstream market, so further analysis of the margin squeeze conduct was required. Notwithstanding the above, he concluded that such conduct did not have an anticompetitive effect.
