TODAY’S PAPER | December 16, 2025 | EPAPER

Pakistan poultry association fined Rs25m after tribunal affirms cartelisation finding

Appellate tribunal upholds CCP order, but reduces penalty from Rs50m


Our Correspondent December 16, 2025 1 min read

ISLAMABAD:

Deciding a long-standing cartel case involving the Pakistan Poultry Association, the Competition Appellate Tribunal has upheld the order of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) and disposed of the appeal filed by the association.

The tribunal, however, reduced the penalty from Rs50 million to Rs25 million, citing a judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case, and directed the PPA to deposit the amount within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

In 2010, the Competition Commission fined the PPA and its members Rs50 million for forming a cartel and illegally colluding on poultry product prices in violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act. The action triggered prolonged legal proceedings over cartelisation in the poultry sector.

During the hearing, the counsel for the appellant told the tribunal that the association had no objection to the appeal being decided in line with the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in a similar case, in which the apex court had taken a lenient view and reduced the penalty.

Relying on the same reasoning and with the consent of the appellant, the tribunal reduced the total penalty to Rs25 million. It held that the facts of the present appeal were largely similar. It disposed of the case without examining the merits afresh.

In 2009, the CCP had initiated an inquiry after receiving complaints about sharp increases in poultry prices, particularly the day-old chicks, chicken meat, eggs and poultry feed.

The inquiry found that prices of day-old broiler chicks surged sharply, rising from as low as Rs6 per chick to as high as Rs71.90 per chick by October 2009, despite the estimated cost of production being around Rs18 per chick.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ