Press Release
C. 21-13
El Salvador, September 18th, 2013.
CS imposes fine to Tropigas for supplying inexact information The Competition Superintendence (CS) sanctioned Tropigas de El Salvador S.A., (hereinafter, “Tropigas”) with a US$74,649.60 fine, after having proven that said company provided inexact information in preliminary proceedings which the CS is carrying out in the liquid petroleum gas (LPG) market. “When the preliminary proceedings were about to conclude in the liquid petroleum gas market, the CS became aware that Tropigas had provided inexact information which delayed its conclusion and which could have altered its findings”, asserted Competition Superintendent, Francisco Diaz Rodriguez.
Tropigas committed the administrative infringement typified in Provision 38 paragraph 6 of the Salvadoran Competition Law (CL), for providing inexactly the information requested by the Competition Superintendence to the aforementioned company in preliminary proceedings began in May 2011 in the liquid petroleum gas market. These preliminary proceedings to collect elements of alleged anticompetitive practices were initiated when the CS became aware, through interviews and news in the press, that competition problems were being created in the above cited market.
Pursuant to the aforementioned, the Superintendence requested information to the Ministry of Economy, the Consumer Protection Authority, to other authorities, and to economic agents related to the liquid petroleum gas market, in order to analyze how the import, production, and distribution chain of said product operates in the country. Notwithstanding the fact that the Tropigas had provided inexact information to the Superintendence, fact which was noticed when the preliminary proceedings were about to conclude, event which delayed its conclusion and which could have altered its findings. Afterwards, once the administrative sanctioning procedure had begun, Tropigas provided the correct information in the terms in which it had been requested. In the course of the aforementioned proceedings, the CS noticed that the unitary sales prices of the gas cylinders reported by the infringing company did not include the Sales Tax, even though said company had affirmed differently.