regulated commodity and also involve payments to the state exchequer in the form of taxes and levies which are linked to the prices that are fixed. In this regard, it may be required for prices to be fixed taking into account various factors, including cost, until the State decides to free the sector of its control. Since OP-1 is a procurer of a regulated commodity, Clause 11 (c) of its Tender dealing with the control of the liquor price does not prima facie appear to be an abuse, and it is not for the competition authority to determine what that appropriate price ought to be. Ideally, competitive price fixation should be inter alia an outcome of economic factors of demand and supply, but the same does not prevent the State or its instrumentality from exercising such powers of price determination when done within the framework of law and a stated policy, considering the nature of the underlying product and the checks and balance as are required. The Commission also observes that, though much relevance has been placed by the IPs on an earlier order of the Commission, in the International Spirits case, the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable in-as-much as in International Spirits case, the State instrumentality was found to have been acting in derogation of the excise policy of the State and distorting supplies of alcoholic beverages which not in consonance with retail demand. In the present case, it has not been found that OP-1 is acting contrary to the provision of either the law or any excise policy of the State.
