PCC to probe safeguard duty on cement imports

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) will include the recent imposition of provisional safeguard duty on cement imports in its probe on alleged anti-competitive practices in the cement industry.

PCC commissioner Johannes Bernabe told reporters the antitrust body would take into consideration in its investigation the move of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to impose a provisional safeguard duty on cement imports.

“We will factor it in because that’s new. So, we’ll have to get data on volume of imports which came in. What is the effect on prices and see if there has been changes in prices of domestically produced cement. A lot of different variables our investigating team are looking at,” he said.

Earlier this month, Trade Secretary Ramon Lopez said the DTI would impose a provisional safeguard duty of P8.40 per 40-kilogram bag of imported cement as a relief to local manufacturers after the agency found cement imports have surged and caused injury to domestic players.

Cement imports, in particular, rose to more than three million metric tons (MT) in 2017 from only 3,558 MT in 2013.

During the same period, the share of imports in the market grew to 15 percent from just 0.02 percent.

The provisional safeguard duty would be in place for 200 days while the Tariff Commission is conducting its formal investigation.

In 2017, the PCC started its probe on the cement industry, particularly for possible violations of Sections 14 and 15 of the Philippine Competition Act, in response to a complaint filed by former DTI undersecretary and now president of consumer advocacy group Laban Konsyumer Inc. Victorio Mario Dimagiba.

Sections 14 and 15 of the PCA cover prohibited acts such as anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position.

Based on Dimagiba’s complaint, the Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines led by its president Ernesto Ordonez, LaFarge Holcim Philippines Inc. and Republic Cement and Building Materials Inc. violated the provisions of the PCA by engaging in anti-competitive agreements.

Anti-competitive agreements cited include restricting competition as to price or components thereof or other terms of trade, abusing their dominant position by engaging in conduct that substantially prevent, restrict, or lessen competition, imposing barriers to entry, or committing acts that prevent competitors from growing within the market.

The PCC has said earlier it would take two years or until this year for the antitrust body to complete its investigation.