Filter Cases


Case Category



Latest Cases


2022, Indonesia, Other

Jakarta (27/9) – Indonesia Competition Commission (ICC) has settled the partnership issue between PT Guthrie Pecconina Indonesia (PT GPI) and KUD Sinar Delima in a case of alleged violation of Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2008 (Law 20/2008). The settlement was ended by virtue of decision of ICC as read out in the Panel Hearing for the Reading Out of Decision of Case Number 02/KPPU-K/2021 regarding Alleged Violation of Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law 20/2008 regarding the Implementation of Partnership by PT GPI in Musi Banyuasin Regency at the Head Office ICC Jakarta today. ICC in its decision concludes that the settlement agreement as proposed by PT GPI at the hearings proves that there is no endeavor to legally control business activities being run and the assets/properties owned by KUD Sinar Delima, therefore, the element of owning and/or controlling is not met. Thus, ICC has decided that PT GPI is not proven to have violated Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 Year 2008.

This case had its origin from the result of report and was followed up to the preliminary examination stage with PT GPI as the Reported Party (Core) and Sinar Delima Village Unit Cooperative (KUD) (Plasma). PT GPI is a company engaged in the field of production of palm kernel oil, meanwhile KUD Sinar Delima accommodates oil palm farmers in managing plasma plantations. PT GPI and KUD Sinar Delima have partnered with through a Cooperation Agreement under agreement number 001/PLASMA/GPI-KUD/I/2012 Dated January 26, 2012 in the context of the Development of Oil Palm Plantations under KKPA Partnership (Primary Cooperative Credit for Members) Planting Calendar 2005/2006 -2013 at the location of Kecamatan Sungai Keruh (Sungai Keruh District), Musi Banyuasin Regency, South Sumatra Province. In its implementation, KUD Sinar Delima deems that the agreement is disadvantageous to the plasma, hence, requesting that an amendment to the agreement with PT GPI be made, but it has yet to implemented

ICC, in its law enforcement process, has conveyed 3 (three) written warnings and orders for improvement to PT GPI, but all of them have not been implemented. Therefore, ICC continued the issue to the Commission Panel Hearing stage. Based on the witness testimonies during the hearings, it was found that the local government had tried to bridge so as to avoid disputes between them and hoped that this could be settled through deliberation to reach a consensus, but to no avail. PT GPI in the hearing eventually stated that they would endeavor to settle the issue through deliberation to reach a consensus so that the partnership continued running properly. For that purpose, PT GPI put forward a Settlement Agreement between them at the end of the hearing process.

The said Settlement Agreement briefly contains among other things an agreement to clarify the implementation of the Cooperation Agreement in various matters, such as joint preparation and planning, the implementation of the management and maintenance of plasma plantations that will engage both parties, as well as the preparation of report on the implementation of the management and maintenance of plasma plantations as set forth in Plasma Plantations Management Report (LPKP). In addition to the above, they also agreed that in the event that there is a need for other infrastructure improvement, the parties agree to first hold deliberation to agree on the form, the amount of costs, and the party that will bear the costs of improving the plasma plantation infrastructure.

Based on the facts at the hearings as well as the positive efforts made by PT GPI through the Settlement Agreement, the Commission Panel concluded that there was no legal control over the business activities being conducted by KUD Sinar Delima and the assets/properties owned by KUD Sinar Delima by the Reported Party as a Large Business acting as its business partner in the implementation of relationships. Therefore, the Commission Panel decided that PT GPI was not proven to have violated Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law 20/2008.