1. This enquiry was initiated by he Director General (Investigation and Registration) [the DG] in respect of the alleged unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice adopted by M/s. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. There is a huge Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) filed by the DG as a result of the enquiry. However, even before the evidence is led by he parties, an undertaking dated 16.09.2013 has been filed by he respondent company. This undertaking has followed an earlier undertaking dated 08.08.2013. It may be stated here that the undertaking dated 08.08.2013 was filed in another enquiry i.e. RTPE 43/2000 also. Treating that the present enquiry is akin to the earlier enquiry, the same undertaking came to be filed by way of an affidavit dated 08.08.2013. However, that undertaking was objected to by the learned counsel for the DG, Shri R.D. Makheeja, whose contention was that the issues in these two enquiries are different. The respondents, therefore, have come up with a subsequent undertaking dated 16.09.2013. It seems that even this undertaking also is being objected to by the learned counsel for the DG who says that, in spite of this undertaking, as many as four issues remain. Learned counsel for the DG, Shri Makheeja, has given us a Table of the Objections which are 8 in number. He, however, says that he may not press the objections at Sl. Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. But, he insists on the objections at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are as under:

We have seen the undertaking dated 16.09.2013. Shri Makheeja also took us through the Code of Ethics and Rules of Conduct for Amway Distributors and, on that basis, argued that there are unnecessary restrictions on the distributors and they are being offered unfair conditions which amount to unfair trade practices as defined in the erstwhile Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act in short).

2. We have carefully seen all the four issues/objections and heard the parties. Shri A.N. Haksar, senior counsel for the respondent, states that the Code of Ethics and Rules of Conduct for Amway Distributors itself suggests that the distributors can engage in any other business/professional activity. He also took us through Clause 4.14.2 of the Code of Ethics and Rules of Conduct which is clear enough. In view of the clear language of this Clause, we do not think that the objection raised in the first issue or, at least the first part thereof, could survive.

3. As regards the second part of the objection at Sl. No. 1, Shri Makheeja, says that the distributors are prohibited to deal in non-Amway products or to sell such products to Amway distributors. This also does not survive in view of the clear-cut language contained in Clause 4.14 and further in Clause 4.14.2.

4. The second objection is about the condition that Silver & above level distributor alone can sell his/her ownership interest and that too only to his International Sponsor/Foster Sponsor/Local Sponsor etc. In our opinion, this does not pertain to the retail or any other sale. It is essentially a business issue which may not be covered under the provisions of the MRTP Act.

5. The third issue relates to the compulsory purchase of the bimonthly in-house magazine, AMAGRAM, despite the fact that the distributors are independent contractors. We have enquired about the contents of this magazine. By this, the company lets the distributor/seller know the intricacies and implications of the machineries or the products that he sells. Now we have also got it clarified that the purchase of the said magazine is not compulsory. It is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that this magazine is available even on the internet. Be that as it may. In view of the clear statement made before us that the purchase of the magazine, AMAGRAM, is not compulsory, we do not think that there would be any issue arising out much less covered under the provisions of the MRTP Act.

6. The fourth issue is about the compulsion that the Amway distributor must sell Amway products within India and shall not export or sell to who export Amway products. This being the issue relating to import-export policy (EXIM Policy of the Govt. of India), we do not think that this issue comes within the scope of the MRTP Act. In short, we are satisfied that the undertaking given by the respondent, M/s. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., would meet all the issues/objections raised by the learned counsel for the DG. We, therefore, order closure of the enquiry and discharge the Notice of Enquiry.