On 5 August 2025, the Indonesia Competition Commission (locally known as KPPU), found the following four companies to have violated various Competition Law^[1] provisions in Case No.18/KPPU-L/2024 (Case):

1. Sany International Development Ltd (SID);
2. PT Sany Indonesia Machinery (PT SIM);
3. PT Sany Heavy Industry Indonesia (PT SHII); and
4. PT Sany Indonesia Heavy Equipment; (PT SIHE)

(together Sany Group).

Each Sany Group company was found to have violated Article 14 of the Competition Law and three were found to have violated Article 19 of the Competition Law.^[2]  For their violations, KPPU imposed its largest total fines on a company group to date, amounting to IDR 449 billion (approx. US$27.6 million). This fine includes the largest fine KPPU has ever imposed on a single company, PT SIM, totalling IDR 320 billion (approx. US$19.7 million).

Background of the Case

Sany Group engages in the business of manufacturing, marketing, importing and selling trucks that transport mining products and spare parts for the trucks (Relevant Market) under the Sany brand.  SID wanted to establish a presence in Indonesia and did so by entering into a non-exclusive dealership agreement with PT Pusaka Bumi Transportasi (PT PBT) and PT Gajah Utama International (PT GUI) to sell Sany’s products. Even though it was a non-exclusive dealership agreement, PT PBT and PT GUI were not permitted to sell similar products of Sany Group’s competitors.

PT PBT and PT GUI initially procured Sany’s products through PT SIM, which acted as the importer of Sany’s products, in accordance with the dealership agreement made with SID.  

However, while the dealership agreement was still ongoing, SID decided to establish two new companies, PT SHII and PT SIHE, to act as Sany product resellers.  After PT SHII and PT SIHE were established, SID imposed a policy requiring that all marketing and sales of Sany products to consumers must be carried out through the Sany Group entities (Policy).  

As a result of the Policy:

1. SID stopped supplying Sany products to PT PBT and PT GUI (through PT SIM) after PT SHII and PT SIHE were established, although SID (through PT SIM) was still supplying Sany products to PT SHII and PT SIHE; and
2. PT PBT and PT GUI were only able to procure Sany products through PT SHII and PT SIH.

SID, together with PT SIM, were also found to have applied discriminatory treatment against PT PBT and PT GUI through various means, including the imposition of significantly shorter payment terms. As a direct result of Sany Group’s conduct through the Policy and discriminatory treatment, PT PBT and PT GUI were forced to exit the Relevant Market.

Due to the serious consequences of PT PBT and PT GUI exiting the Relevant Market, KPPU decided to investigate Sany Group and had found that its conduct had violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Competition Law.

KPPU’s Competition Law violation findings

KPPU found that Sany Group’s conduct referred to below violated Article 14 and Article 19 of the Competition Law.

KPPU finding 1: The Policy gave an unfair business advantage to Sany’s subsidiaries and discriminated against PT PBT and PT GUI

KPPU found that SID, which oversees Sany’s international production and marketing, had the power to shape Sany Group’s strategy in the Relevant Market.  As a direct result of SID stopping the supply of Sany’s products to PT PBT and PT GUI after PT SIHE and PT SHII were established, both PT PBT and PT GUI were forced to procure Sany products from PT SHII and PT SIHE. Having to procure Sany products in this manner turned PT PBT and PT GUI into customers rather than independent non-exclusive dealers.  Effectively, the Policy put an end to PT PBT’s and PT GUI’s ability to secure a direct supply chain for Sany’s international distribution through PT SIM.

KPPU also found that PT PBT and PT GUI were pushed out of the Relevant Market, due to the Policy discriminating in favour of supplying Sany’s subsidiaries, PT SHII and PT SIHE, which effectively controlled the entire supply chain for Sany products in Indonesia.  Due to these findings, KPPU determined that Sany Group had violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Competition Law.

KPPU finding 2: Unfair shortened payment terms for PT PBT and PT GUI

KPPU also determined that Sany Group had violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Competition Law by unilaterally applying shortened payment terms to PT PBT and PT GUI in a discriminatory manner. Before PT SHII and PT SIHE were established, PT PBT and PT GUI were subject to a 360-day payment arrangement for their purchase of Sany products. The payment terms were unilaterally shortened to 90 days after PT SHII and PT SIHE were established, to PT PBT’s and PT GUI’s detriment.

Although the specific payment terms that applied to PT SHII and PT SIHE were not disclosed in the decision, PT SHII and PT SIHE were also found to have violated GR 29/2021 by selling Sany products direct to end-users despite their legal status as wholesalers.^[3]  Ultimately, KPPU concluded that the act of unilaterally shortening payment terms to PT PBT and PT GUI gave Sany Group (through PT SHII and PT SIHE) an unfair business advantage in procuring Sany products, compared to PT PBT and PT GUI.

Fines and penalties

KPPU found that all Sany Group members had violated various Competition Law provisions, and ordered the penalties as set out in the table below.

Apart from the imposed fines, KPPU also ordered SID to amend the non-exclusive dealership agreement by eliminating the provisions that violated the Competition Law. SID was also ordered to amend its distribution channel for trucks and spare parts.

Next step for Sany Group

Given the high fines imposed on the Sany Group members, they all appealed to the Central Jakarta Commercial Court on 25 August 2025 in an attempt to overturn KPPU’s decision. As a procedural prerequisite to filing the appeal, each fined Sany Group member must provide a bank guarantee amounting to 20% of the total fine imposed on it, in favour of KPPU.

If Sany Group fail to overturn KPPU’s decision in the Jakarta Commercial Court, their last resort will be to file a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court based on evidence that KPPU or the Court:^[4]

1. lacked the authority to make its decision;
2. misapplied the applicable law; or
3. failed to comply with regulatory requirements.

Conclusion and key takeaways

KPPU’s decision appears to be flawed to the extent that, that despite overseeing Sany Group’s international operations and being the architect of the policies that led to the relevant Competition Law violations, SID managed to escape any penalty.

However, regardless of its apparent flaws, the Case is significant due to the weighty fines imposed by KPPU, indicating KPPU’s seriousness in deterring anti-competitive behaviour. The Case therefore serves as a warning to other players that there will be serious financial consequences for those who choose to violate the Competition Law.

We will continue to monitor and report on any significant developments in Sany Group’s appeal.