Abnormal Price Competition Law in Bangladesh 2026: Syndicates, Price Gouging and Hoarding

Abnormal price competition law Bangladesh: the 2026 position

Abnormal price competition law Bangladesh enforcement turns on a single word. Section 15(2) of the Competition Act 2012 treats a practice or decision among sellers of the same or similar goods as anti-competitive if it directly or indirectly fixes purchase or sale prices "abnormally", yet the Act never says what abnormal means.[1] That gap now sits at the centre of the country's fight against so-called market syndicates in eggs, broiler chicken, rice, flour and edible oil, and it shapes how every trader, importer and processor should document its pricing.

This briefing focuses on price: how the Bangladesh Competition Commission tests whether a price is abnormal, the cases it has decided since its 2022 enforcement wave, and how the Competition Act interacts with the Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009, the Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956 and the hoarding offences in the Special Powers Act 1974. It also covers the market-monitoring drive launched by the elected government in 2026. For the wider architecture of the Competition Act, including combinations and compliance programmes, read our guide to competition law in Bangladesh.

Summary: Bangladesh polices price spikes through four overlapping regimes. The Competition Commission fines collusive "abnormal" pricing and supply restriction under section 15 of the Competition Act 2012; the consumer directorate punishes overcharging and missing price lists under the Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009; the government can control listed essentials under the 1956 Act; and hoarding is a grave offence under the Special Powers Act 1974. Each has a different trigger, process and penalty.

Key point: The Commission's fines for abnormal pricing have so far rested on evidence of coordination: price instructions sent to traders, supply cut-offs, restricted output and margins that costs cannot explain. A high price on its own is not enough under section 15, but a business that cannot explain its price with cost and market evidence is exposed.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What section 15(2) says about abnormal prices

Section 15(1) of the Competition Act 2012 prohibits any agreement or collusion, direct or indirect, concerning the production, supply, distribution, storage or acquisition of goods or services that has an adverse effect on competition or creates monopoly or oligopoly.[1] Section 15(2) then lists conduct that is treated as anti-competitive when it comes from a practice or decision of persons dealing in identical or similar goods or services. The first item is where the abnormal price problem begins.

The text and its translation

In the Bengali text, clause (ka) catches conduct that directly or indirectly "ক্রয় বা বিক্রয় মূল্য অস্বাভাবিকভাবে নির্ধারণ করে", that is, abnormally fixes the purchase or sale price, and, in a second limb, fraudulently fixes deceptive prices in any process, including tenders. Clause (kha) covers limiting or controlling production, supply, markets, technical development, investment or services, and clause (ga) covers dividing markets or sources of supply.[1] The pairing matters. Most of the Commission's price cases plead both the abnormal price limb and the supply-restriction limb, because a shortage is often the mechanism that produces the price.

A per se rule without a definition

UNCTAD's 2022 peer review read section 15(2) as an outright prohibition: conduct that falls within the list is deemed anti-competitive and there is no efficiency defence.[3] That is a strong rule for cartels. The difficulty is that "abnormally" is an evaluative word. In a mature regime, price fixing is unlawful whatever the level of the agreed price; the Bangladeshi wording instead invites an argument about whether the price itself was abnormal, which pulls cost, margin and market evidence into every case.

Who the clause reaches

Section 15(2) applies to persons dealing in identical or similar goods or services, so it is aimed at competitors and at trade associations that coordinate them. Vertical restraints, such as resale price maintenance and refusals to deal, sit in section 15(3) and are judged by their effect.[1] In practice the Commission has applied section 15 to arrangements that run through distributors and wholesalers as well as between producers, as the edible oil and egg cases show.

The abnormal price problem: four gaps in the statute

The legacy debate about abnormal price competition law Bangladesh practitioners kept returning to was simple: the Act punishes abnormal prices but gives no yardstick, and it does not clearly reach a single firm that raises its price without colluding. Four gaps explain why that matters for businesses and for the Commission.

No benchmark for "abnormal"

The Act defines "price" broadly, to include any valuable consideration, whether direct, indirect or deferred, and any consideration that is in substance tied to a sale or service.[1] It does not define an abnormal price, prescribe a margin test or authorise guidelines that do. Neither the Act nor any published regulation tells a trader whether abnormal means a price above cost plus a reasonable return, a price above the prior period, or a price above comparable markets. UNCTAD recommended that the Commission publish guidelines on agreements, abuse of dominance and sanctions.[3]

Collusion is still required

Section 15 bites on agreements, collusion, practices or decisions. A single firm that raises its own prices, without any understanding with competitors or distributors, is outside its natural reach. The Commission's own officials have acknowledged the limitation: the drafting committee formed in February 2025 was asked to allow action against an individual acting alone where that person harms competition.[9] Until that change is enacted, the Commission must prove some form of coordination.

Dominance covers discriminatory and predatory prices, not excessive ones

Section 16 prohibits abuse of a dominant position. Clause (ka) of section 16(2) covers imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions in buying, selling or supplying services, and fixing discriminatory prices or predatory prices; predatory price is defined as selling below the cost of production or supply with the aim of reducing or eliminating competition.[1] There is no express prohibition of excessive or unfair pricing by a dominant firm. A complainant may argue that an exploitative price is an "unfair condition", but that reading is untested, and the Act sets no market-share threshold for dominance.[3]

Overlap with consumer and criminal law

Price spikes in essential goods also trigger the consumer directorate, district administrations and the police. The Commission has a statutory function to review measures taken under other laws for the protection of consumer rights, but the Act does not allocate cases between agencies.[1] The same conduct can therefore produce a counter-level fine, a Competition Commission case and, where stock is involved, a hoarding prosecution.

Excessive pricing analysis: how abnormal prices are tested

Because the statute is silent, the method has come from practice. Understanding that method is the most useful thing a business can do to manage abnormal price competition law Bangladesh risk.

Cost, price, margin and market share

When the Commission filed its September 2022 cases, it asked each firm for a detailed business report covering how long it had been in business, production and marketing volumes over the relevant period, production cost and sales price, market share and a justification for the unusual price increases.[4] That request is the template. The Commission builds a timeline of cost and price, identifies the period in which price outran cost, and then looks for the conduct that explains the gap.

The critique from industry

The method is contested. A director of Kazi Farms Group, one of the firms fined, has argued that the Commission compared production costs with selling prices and treated a short period of unusually high profit as proof of collusion, when agricultural prices swing naturally because supply responds to past prices with a lag.[10] He points to tens of thousands of small producers in the poultry sector, to periods in which farmers sell at a loss, and to low egg prices in early 2026 that led farmers to buy fewer chicks and produced a later shortage.[10] The author has a direct interest, but the argument identifies the real weakness of a margin-only test.

How mature regimes approach excessive prices

Competition authorities elsewhere generally treat excessive pricing as an abuse that only a dominant firm can commit, and they ask two questions: whether the price is excessive when compared with cost or with comparable markets, and whether it is unfair in itself or by comparison. Both stages require careful economic work, and authorities are cautious because a high price can reflect scarcity, risk or innovation. Bangladesh has, in effect, transplanted the first question into a collusion provision, without the second.

Evidence that has persuaded the Commission

The decided cases show that margin evidence alone has rarely carried the day. In the People's Poultry and Hatchery case, the Commission relied on price instructions sent to traders by SMS after their vehicles had been dispatched, prices 30 to 40 paisa per egg above the market rate, refusal to supply traders who did not comply, and traders being made to buy hatching eggs at commercial egg prices.[6] In the S Alam edible oil case, the finding was that the company restricted output and conspired with distributors and other firms to control the market.[7] Coordination, supply control and coercion of buyers are what turn a high price into an abnormal one.

Defences that carry weight

A credible defence explains the price, rather than simply denying an agreement. The strongest material is contemporaneous: landed import costs, exchange-rate movements, duty changes, feed and energy costs, seasonal supply data, auction records and evidence that the firm's prices moved independently of rivals. In the poultry case, Kazi Farms' lawyer argued that its daily price came from a transparent open auction.[5] A firm that can show a documented, unilateral pricing process is far better placed than one that reconstructs its reasons after a notice arrives.

Abnormal price competition law Bangladesh enforcement record

The Commission was slow to start. UNCTAD recorded that between 2018 and its 2022 review the Commission received eight complaints, opened four investigations on its own motion into anti-competitive agreements, and concluded one case in 2018, one in 2019, none in 2020 and five in 2021; sanctions had been imposed in two cases, both of which were challenged in the High Court Division.[3] The position changed with the commodity price shock of 2022.

The 2022 enforcement wave

In September 2022 the Commission filed 44 cases of its own motion against 36 companies and individual traders, alleging that they had destabilised markets by unusually raising prices and creating artificial shortages.[4] The cases covered rice, flour, eggs, broiler chicken and toiletries, and the respondents included some of the country's largest consumer-goods groups as well as rice millers and the president of an egg traders' association.[4] Edible oil refiners were investigated separately the same year.[7]

Poultry and eggs

On 9 October 2023 the Commission fined Kazi Farms Limited Tk 5 crore and Saguna Foods Bangladesh Limited Tk 3.44 crore under section 15 over the broiler chicken price rise, finding the increase abnormal and linked to anti-competitive conduct.[5] In February 2025 it fined People's Poultry and Hatchery Ltd Tk 7,202,973, calculated on average turnover over the previous three years, for violating sections 15(1) and 15(2), with payment due within 30 working days and a daily penalty of up to Tk 1 lakh for default.[6]

Edible oil

The largest reported fine so far came in February 2026, when the Commission ordered S Alam Super Edible Oil Ltd to pay Tk 42.84 crore for breaching section 15(1) and section 15(2), clauses (a)(i) and (b): abnormal pricing and limiting production and supply.[7] The conduct dated from 2022, when supply stayed tight even after the government raised edible oil prices by Tk 38 per litre on 5 May 2022 at traders' request. The company was given 30 days from receipt of the full order to pay, seek review or appeal, and a Commission member warned that failure to do any of these would be treated as a violation of the order.[7]

What the record tells businesses

Four lessons stand out for anyone assessing abnormal price competition law Bangladesh exposure. Cases are usually opened on the Commission's own motion after media and consumer directorate reports, not on private complaint. Investigations take years: the poultry and edible oil conduct dates from 2022, with decisions in 2023, 2025 and 2026. Fines are calculated on turnover, so they hit the whole business and not only the product concerned. And contested orders move to review, appeal and writ proceedings, which UNCTAD noted were already pending in 2022.[3] The penalty ceilings and appeal mechanics are set out in our competition law guide.

Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009: overcharging at the counter

Most price enforcement that ordinary shoppers see is not competition law at all. It is the Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009, administered by the Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection (DNCRP). The Act is retail-focused: it punishes what a seller does at the point of sale, not how a market price is formed, so it complements rather than replaces abnormal price competition law Bangladesh enforcement.

The price offences

Selling or offering goods, medicine or services above the price fixed by law is punishable under section 40 with up to one year's imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 50,000, or both.[2] Failing to display a price list in a visible place carries the same penalty under section 38, and section 39 applies the same rule to service price lists. Packaging that does not clearly show weight, ingredients, maximum retail price and production and expiry dates is an offence under section 37, and knowingly selling adulterated goods carries up to three years and a fine of up to Tk 2 lakh under section 41.[2]

What the Act cannot do

Section 40 requires a price "fixed by law". Where the government has not fixed a price, overcharging in the economic sense is not itself an offence, which is why DNCRP drives typically focus on missing price lists, missing purchase receipts and mislabelled packs. The Directorate can also order temporary closure of a shop, factory or warehouse under section 27.[2] For a wholesaler or importer, the practical risk is a raid that finds no invoices for stock: that gap is often what turns a consumer inspection into a referral to the Competition Commission or a hoarding allegation.

Consumer complaints

Consumers may lodge written complaints with the Directorate, which can investigate and impose fines. Our insight on product liability law in Bangladesh covers defective goods claims, and our note on e-commerce law in Bangladesh covers online pricing and delivery obligations.

Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956: listed goods and price orders

The Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956 lets the government regulate the production, distribution and pricing of goods it lists as essential.[11] A 2013 revision added sugar, salt, onion, gram, cumin and other spices, and in 2023 the government proposed adding rice, flour, fish, poultry, milk, eggs, potato, wheat and several household goods, on the recommendation of the FBCCI, the Bangladesh Trade and Tariff Commission and line ministries.[11]

Why the list matters

Listing is what gives the government legal footing to fix prices, impose distribution controls and send special mobile courts against manipulation, hoarding and black-marketing. Officials explained the 2023 proposal by pointing out that green chilli could reach Tk 400 per kg without any legal basis for intervention because it was not listed.[11] Before relying on any price order, confirm the current list and order in the gazette.

Where it meets abnormal price competition law Bangladesh rules

Price controls and competition law pull in different directions. A government-fixed or indicative price can become a focal point for coordination, and trade associations sometimes negotiate prices with ministries on behalf of members. Those negotiations should be confined to cost data and policy submissions; members' own selling prices must still be set independently. An agreed industry price that goes beyond what the government has fixed is exactly the kind of decision section 15(2) catches.

Special Powers Act 1974: hoarding and black-marketing

The Special Powers Act 1974 is the harshest tool in the price-control kit. Section 25 punishes hoarding or dealing in the black market with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment of up to 14 years, together with a fine; where the accused shows that the hoarding was not for gain, the punishment is up to three months' imprisonment and a fine, and property connected with the offence may be forfeited.[12]

What counts as hoarding

The Act defines hoarding by reference to quantities allowed by other laws, so liability generally depends on a stock limit fixed under a licence, order or other legislation. Commentators have noted that there is no clear general definition of illegal stockpiling, which is one reason enforcement has been uneven.[12] For importers and dealers, the first question in any raid is therefore documentary: what limit applied to this commodity, this licence and this period, and do the stock registers show the quantity was within it?

The 2026 warning

On 8 August 2026, after inspecting jute and onion wholesale markets in Jhenaidah, Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman said the Special Powers Act would be applied against market syndicates and hoarding, warned that the maximum punishment for hoarding under the 1974 Act is death, and said instructions had been issued to local wholesale and retail markets to dismantle syndicates.[13] The statement signals political appetite for criminal enforcement, not only administrative fines.

Practical exposure

A hoarding allegation is a criminal case, with arrest, seizure of stock and bail applications, rather than a regulatory inquiry. Directors and warehouse managers can be named personally. Businesses holding large inventories of listed or sensitive commodities should keep stock limits, licences and receipts at each warehouse, not only at head office. For criminal exposure more broadly, see our briefing on white-collar crime in Bangladesh.

2026 market-monitoring actions

The elected government that took office after the February 2026 elections has made commodity prices a headline priority, and its approach combines all four regimes.

Task forces, raids and the Commission

Replying in Parliament in September 2026, Commerce Minister Khandakar Abdul Muktadir said market drives were running nationwide through special task forces formed at district level and through the DNCRP, that fines and legal action were being taken under existing laws against overcharging, hoarding, artificial shortages and failure to display price lists, and that the Competition Commission was taking measures against syndicates, cartels and collusive practices.[14] The same reply committed the government to strengthening monitoring as needed.

Who enforces what

A single price spike can bring several agencies to the same warehouse within days. Knowing which body is acting, and under which law, decides the response.

What the climate means for businesses

Three features of the 2026 climate deserve attention. Enforcement is front-loaded around festivals and seasonal shortages, so pricing files should be ready before Ramadan and the onion and rice seasons, not after. Ministers now speak publicly about named sectors, which raises the chance of a suo motu Commission case following a media cycle. And the February 2026 S Alam order shows the Commission is still working through the 2022 caseload, so firms named in that wave should assume their files remain live.[7]

Reform: proposed amendments to the Competition Act

The abnormal price problem is now on the reform agenda. In February 2025 a 13-member committee, including representatives of the Legislative Division, the FBCCI, Supreme Court lawyers and academics, began drafting amendments, with a market-share threshold for identifying dominant firms and a power to act against an individual acting alone among the proposals; at that time 48 cases were under hearing at the Commission.[9]

A later draft reported in October 2025 would give the Commission search and seizure powers over offices, documents, computers and electronic data; introduce leniency for those who admit wrongdoing and cooperate; address algorithms and automated pricing that distort competition; treat exclusive control of consumer data used to block rivals as abuse of dominance; and create a Competition Appellate Tribunal, with a 25 per cent deposit for appeals against fines.[8] The draft remained subject to ministry consultation.[8] No amending statute has been enacted as at the date of this article, so the 2012 text still governs.

If enacted, the changes would alter abnormal price competition law Bangladesh practice in two ways. Unilateral conduct and algorithmic pricing would come within reach, and dawn raids would replace the current reliance on information requests. Businesses that use pricing software, share data through platforms or exchange price information through associations should review those practices now.

Responding to a Commission notice on abnormal pricing

A notice from the Commission usually asks for a business report and attendance at a hearing. The first submission frames the case, so the response should be built as evidence, not as a letter of denial. The sequence below reflects how we prepare clients.

Swipe or scroll →

Where a final order is made, the review and appeal windows are short and a deposit is required before a review or appeal against a fine is heard.[1] Where the Commission has acted outside its powers or without a fair hearing, a writ petition to the High Court Division may also be available; our note on writ petitions in Bangladesh explains the route.

Compliance for traders, importers and processors

Most of the conduct that has led to fines is ordinary commercial behaviour carried out carelessly in a volatile market. The controls that matter are practical.

• Price files: record the cost basis for every list-price change in essential lines, including import cost, exchange rate, duty and freight, and keep the record with the date and approver.
• Distributor messaging: treat SMS, WhatsApp and dealer-group messages as evidence. Recommended prices should say so, and supply should never be conditioned on adherence to them.
• Supply decisions: document the reason for any reduction in output or allocation, such as plant maintenance, raw-material shortage or credit limits, at the time the decision is made.
• Trade associations: require agendas and minutes, keep discussions to policy and published data, and leave any meeting where members discuss their own future prices or stocks.
• Stock records: map every warehouse against the stock limits in licences and commodity orders, and reconcile registers with invoices weekly during shortage periods.
• Counter compliance: retail outlets need visible price lists, correct packaging information and receipts, because consumer directorate raids are often the first step.

For importers, these controls sit alongside licensing and customs obligations covered in our guide to import and export licensing in Bangladesh. The point of the programme is evidential: when a price rises, the business should be able to explain why within a day.

What to watch in late 2026 and 2027

Three developments will shape abnormal price competition law Bangladesh exposure over the next year. First, whether the elected government tables the Competition Act amendments, and in particular whether a definition or guideline for abnormal pricing and a unilateral conduct power survive consultation. Second, how review and appeal proceedings in the poultry, egg and edible oil cases resolve, because a court ruling on the meaning of "abnormally" would fix the standard for every later case. Third, whether ministers follow the August 2026 warnings with Special Powers Act prosecutions, which would raise the stakes for stock management far above any administrative fine.[13]

Businesses in essential commodities should treat price compliance as a standing obligation rather than a crisis response. If you have received a notice, expect scrutiny in a seasonal market, or want your pricing and distribution practices reviewed, our consumer protection practice can help; contact TRW.

Frequently asked questions

What is an abnormal price under Bangladesh competition law?

Section 15(2) of the Competition Act 2012 treats directly or indirectly fixing purchase or sale prices abnormally, by persons dealing in similar goods, as anti-competitive. The Act does not define abnormal, so the Commission assesses it case by case, which is the core of the abnormal price competition law Bangladesh debate.[1]

Is charging a high price illegal in Bangladesh?

Not by itself. Under the Competition Act the Commission must show an agreement, collusion or common practice, or abuse of dominance. Selling above a price fixed by law is a separate offence under section 40 of the Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009.[1] [2]

Does the Competition Act prohibit excessive pricing by a dominant firm?

Not expressly. Section 16 covers unfair or discriminatory conditions, discriminatory prices and predatory prices below cost, but it does not name excessive pricing.[1]

How does the Competition Commission decide whether a price is abnormal?

It typically requests production cost, sales price, volumes, market share and a justification for the increase, then looks for coordination or supply restriction that explains the gap between cost and price.[4]

Which companies have been fined for price manipulation?

Reported fines include Kazi Farms and Saguna Foods in October 2023, People's Poultry and Hatchery in February 2025 and S Alam Super Edible Oil, fined Tk 42.84 crore, in February 2026.[5] [6] [7]

What is the penalty for selling above the fixed price?

Up to one year's imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 50,000, or both, under section 40 of the Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009.[2]

What is the punishment for hoarding in Bangladesh?

Under section 25 of the Special Powers Act 1974, hoarding or black-marketing is punishable with death, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of up to 14 years and a fine, with a lighter penalty where the hoarding was not for gain.[12]

Which goods are essential commodities in Bangladesh?

The list under the Control of Essential Commodities Act 1956 includes sugar, salt, onion, gram, cumin and other spices, with proposals made in 2023 to add rice, flour, eggs, poultry and other staples. Check the current gazette list before relying on it.[11]

Can a fine from the Competition Commission be challenged?

Yes. Section 29 allows review by the Commission or appeal to the government within 30 days, after depositing 10 per cent of the fine for review or 25 per cent for appeal.[1]

Will the Competition Act be amended to cover unilateral price hikes?

A draft prepared since 2025 proposes action against individual conduct, search and seizure powers, leniency and an appellate tribunal, but it has not yet been enacted.[8] [9]