Background of the Case:

The Commission received a complaint from All Pakistan Fruit & Vegetable Exports, Importers and Merchants Association (hereinafter the ‘ACAAP) and Vegetable Exporters, Importers and Merchants Association and Air Cargo Agents Association of Pakistan (hereinafter the ‘PFVA’) (collectively the ‘Complainants’) against foreign airlines operating in Pakistan inter alia Emirates Airline, Qatar Airways, Oman Air, Turkish Airways, Gulf Air, Saudi Arabian Airline and Etihad Airways (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Respondents’) for alleged violation of Section 3 of the Act.

The Complainants contended that the Respondents were charging higher rates for exports of mango, which is in turn did not allow them to compete in the international markets due to high cost of freight levied on the export of mangoes by the Respondent.

An enquiry was constituted to probe into the matter. The enquiry concluded that there was prima facie no evidence that, as compared to the rates for Indian exporters, Pakistani exporters are being charged unreasonable or exorbitant rates for mango exports. Therefore, no case of prima facie violation of section 3(2) of the Act was made out.

Furthermore, the enquiry report opined that there seemed to be no prima facie evidence that, as compared to the rates for Indian exporters, Pakistani exporters were being charged unreasonable or exorbitant rates for mango exports, therefore, there was no case of prima facie violation of Section 3(2) of the Act. Lastly, there was no prima facie evidence of any airline(s) being dominant in the relevant market and therefore, no violation of Section 3 of the Act was made out.

However, it appeared that contrary to international conventions and prevalent practices in other jurisdictions, Pakistan mango exporters were quired to furnish an indemnity bond by all airlines (except Turkish) which absolved the airline of all responsibility of loss (however this practice was further discontinued by Emirates Airline and Qatar Airline).

After the findings of the Enquiry Report, the Commission held hearings to provide the complainant with an opportunity to put forth their concerns, if any, in respect to the findings of the Enquiry in the instant matter.

During the hearing proceedings the Representatives of the Complainants informed the Bench that after initiation of the enquiry by the Commission, the Respondents waived the requirement of filing of Indemnity bond/no claim that absolved the Respondent from the loss incurred due to delay or damage caused during transit and handling.

Conclusion:

The Commission noted the conclusions of the Enquiry Report to be well founded, furthermore one of the grievances of the Complainants has also been addressed. The Complainants were further notified of their liberty to file a fresh complaint duly supported with the prima facie evidence substantiating their stance and allegations in respect of any other allegations which do not form the subject matter of the Enquiry Report in the instant matter.