Mittal Steel South Africa Limited and Others v Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Others

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Durban Roodepoort Deep Limited lodged a complaint with the Competition Commission alleging that Mittal Steel South Africa Limited, a dominant producer of flat steel products, contravened sections 8(a) and 8(d)(i) of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 by charging excessive prices and engaging in exclusionary conduct. The Commission issued a notice of non-referral, after which the complainants referred the matter to the Competition Tribunal. The Tribunal found that Mittal had contravened section 8(a) (excessive pricing) but dismissed the section 8(d)(i) complaint. Mittal’s conduct involved import parity pricing (IPP) and contractual resale/export restrictions imposed through a joint venture with Macsteel International BV, under which excess steel production was exported at lower prices and could not be resold domestically. The Tribunal held that these resale conditions reduced domestic supply and sustained higher domestic prices. Remedies included prohibitory orders, disclosure obligations, and a substantial administrative penalty. Mittal and the Macsteel entities appealed both the merits and remedies to the Competition Appeal Court.

The appeal against the finding of a contravention of section 8(a) succeeded. The Tribunal’s declaratory order and the consequential remedies, including the administrative penalty and other orders, were set aside.

This case is a leading authority on excessive pricing under South African competition law. It clarified that section 8(a) requires a substantive inquiry into whether the price charged bears a reasonable relation to the economic value of the product, and that excessive pricing cannot be inferred solely from market structure, dominance, or exclusionary conduct. The judgment curtailed an expansive interpretation of section 8(a) and reinforced legal certainty in the regulation of dominant firms’ pricing.