Library / PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ACT, NO. 6, 2021 MIDSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM PETROLEUM PREVENTION OF ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES AND BEHAVIOUR REGULATIONS, 2026 ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ACT, NO. 6, 2021 MIDSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM PETROLEUM PREVENTION OF ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES AND BEHAVIOUR REGULATIONS, 2026 ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS

Page 45 of 127

Open the PDF at page 45

45 
 
(7) Review and Reconsideration: A licensee may request a review or 
reconsideration of a dominance finding by submitting new evidence or 
changed market circumstances to the Authority. The Authority shall consider 
such request for reconsideration and issue a reasoned decision within ninety 
(90) days.  
 
39. Defences and Justifications for Conduct by Dominant Firms 
(1) Right to Defence:  
A licensee or group of licensees found to be in a dominant position may 
defend alleged anti-competitive conduct by demonstrating that: 
 
(a) The conduct did not occur as alleged; or 
 
(b) The conduct, though prima facie restrictive or exclusionary, is 
objectively justified, efficiency-enhancing, or competitively neutral. 
(2) Acceptable Justifications:  
Without limiting the generality of sub-regulation (a), the following shall be 
considered potentially valid defences, subject to strict scrutiny by the 
Authority: 
(i) Cost-based Rationalisation: The conduct reflects genuine cost efficiencies 
or economies of scale or scope, such as: 
 
 
(A) A loyalty rebate that is proportional to actual logistics or 
administrative cost savings from bulk orders; 
 
 
(B) Volume discounts that do not foreclose access to smaller rivals 
or new entrants. 
(b) Objective Business Risk: The refusal to supply a product or service is based 
on objective, verifiable grounds, such as: 
(i) Proven insolvency risk or history of default by the counterparty; 
(ii) Safety or technical incapacity of the counterparty to receive the 
product or service under applicable regulatory standards. 
(c) Pro-competitive Effects or Efficiency Gains: The conduct leads to 
demonstrable gains in production, distribution, investment, innovation, or 
service quality, and: 
 
(i) The benefits are passed on to consumers in whole or in substantial 
part; and 
 
(ii) There is no less restrictive alternative available to achieve the same 
benefits. 
(d) Legal or Regulatory Compliance: The conduct is mandated or reasonably 
undertaken to comply with legal, contractual, safety, or environmental 
obligations. 
(3) Burden of Proof: The burden of proof shall lie squarely and heavily on the 
dominant firm to: 
 
(a) Demonstrate with credible evidence that the alleged conduct did 
not occur as stated; or 
 
(b) Prove that the conduct is objectively justified and proportionate in 
light of its alleged anti-competitive effects. 
 
(4) Assessment Criteria of the Authority: 
 In evaluating a defence, the Authority shall consider: