A Competition Tribunal ruling has fined two companies for their involvement in the wire mesh cartel.
The Competition Tribunal announced its judgment in the wire mesh cartel case this week, fining two of the companies found guilty of engaging in price fixing and customer allocation a total of R27.1-million.
The tribunal ordered that Vulcania Reinforcing and Reinforcing Mesh Solutions pay administrative penalties of R5.6 million and R21.6-million respectively.
Vulcania had been involved in the cartel from January 2006 to January 2008 and RMS from January 2004 to January 2008.
The tribunal heard the case in February and March 2011 and heard closing arguments in August 2011.
The commission began investigating the cartel activity when Murray and Roberts Steel on behalf of its subsidiary, BRC Mesh Reinforcing, lodged a leniency application on September 26 2008.
Murray and Roberts admitted to participating in the cartel with RMS, Vulcania and Aveng (Africa) (trading as Steeldale Mesh) and was granted conditional immunity from prosecution provided that it cooperated with the commission in the investigation and prosecution of the cartel.
Aveng settled this case with the commission in April 2011, paying an administrative penalty of R129-million that relates to the two complaints its subsidiary Steeldale is facing in the wire mesh and reinforcing steel bar cartel cases.
Wire mesh is an input into the construction industry and is used to reinforce concrete.
Customers include construction firms and resellers of building products.
“It was common cause that a cartel existed in this industry for some years,” the tribunal said on Tuesday.
“Steeledale and BRC earlier admitted to participating in it.”
“Vulcania, while admitting attendance at meetings with its competitors on several occasions, denied that its actions amounted to an agreement to join the cartel and hence denied liability,” it said.
“In respect of RMS, which admitted liability, the issue was the extent of its involvement in the cartel and then two further issues — whether a penalty could be competently imposed upon it and, if it could, what an appropriate penalty was.”