Sany Group case: Commercial Court annuls KPPU decision on procedural grounds

On 23 July 2026, the Central Jakarta Commercial Court (Court) upheld the objection filed by entities within the Sany Group and annulled in its entirety the Indonesia Competition Commission (KPPU)’s decision No.18/KPPU-L/2024 (KPPU Decision) that had found against the Sany Group entities.  The Court’s judgment is set out in case Nos.4 to 7/Pdt.Sus-KPPU/2025/PN Jkt.Pst
(Court Judgment).  

The Court Judgment is significant from a procedural perspective.  In particular, the Court found that KPPU had failed to adequately consider evidence and arguments submitted by the Sany Group entities during the proceedings.  Such failure was considered inconsistent with the principle of
audi et alteram partem, the right of each party to be heard, and constituted a procedural defect warranting the annulment of the KPPU Decision.

Revisiting the Sany Group case

The underlying case concerned the sale and distribution of Sany-branded trucks and spare parts in Indonesia.  KPPU’s investigation involved four companies that were found to be in violation of various Competition Law¹ provisions. The relevant Sany group parties were:

1. PT 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 had breached Article 14 and various paragraphs of Article 19 of the Competition Law.

As a result of the Sany Group companies’ Competition Law breaches, KPPU imposed its record high cumulative penalty, totalling IDR 449 billion (approx. US$27.6 million).  In an effort to challenge the imposition of these penalties, the Sany Group companies filed an appeal with the Court. Please see our client update published on 22 October 2025 for further details of the KPPU Decision here.  

The Court’s findings: procedural fairness and the right to be heard

Following the KPPU Decision, the Sany Group companies filed an objection before the Court.  In upholding the objection, the Court found, among other things, that KPPU had not adequately considered expert testimony and documentary evidence submitted by certain Sany Group companies during the proceedings.

The Court considered this failure to be inconsistent with the principle of audi et alteram partem, under which parties to contested case proceedings should be afforded a fair opportunity to present their arguments and evidence and have those submissions properly considered.

The Court therefore regarded KPPU’s failures regarding the Sany Group companies’ testimony and evidence as procedural defects and, on that basis, annulled the KPPU Decision in its entirety. Publicly available reporting of the Court Judgment notes that the Court’s conclusion was based on procedural grounds, rather than constituting a substantive reassessment of all of the alleged Competition Law infringements.

This distinction is important. The Court Judgment should not necessarily be understood as establishing that the conduct considered by KPPU was substantively compliant with the Competition Law.  Rather, the Court Judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness in KPPU proceedings and the need for KPPU to properly consider the arguments and evidence presented by the parties before reaching its determination.

A Note on the Scope of the Court’s Ruling

It is worth noting that the Court’s annulment of the KPPU Decision rested solely on the procedural finding that KPPU had not properly considered certain expert testimony and documentary evidence submitted by certain Sany Group entities. The Court Judgment records that KPPU was obliged to consider and evaluate the expert testimony and documentary evidence submitted by certain Sany Group entities to uphold the legal principle of audi et alteram partem (that is, “the right to a fair hearing”).

In the Sany Group case, although the Court applied an important legal principle to defeat KPPU’s substantive findings of Competition Law violations, it is not clear how the Court could have concluded that KPPU “did not consider” the expert testimony and documentary evidence that was, in fact presented before KPPU during the hearings. The Court appears to have taken issue with the KPPU Decision purely because KPPU did not specifically refer to and analyse the experts’ testimony and documentary evidence in the text of its Decision.

Key takeaways

The Court Judgment reinforces the importance of procedural due process in Indonesian Competition Law enforcement, mainly for the purpose of disciplining how KPPU writes up its decisions.  Although KPPU has broad investigative and decision-making powers under the Competition Law, its proceedings remain subject to fundamental procedural principles, including the right of parties to be heard and to have their relevant arguments and evidence properly considered in the KPPU’s decisions.

For businesses involved in KPPU investigations, the KPPU Decision also underscores the importance of presenting a clear evidentiary record during the administrative proceedings and ensuring that material factual, economic and legal submissions are properly placed before KPPU.

The decision may therefore have wider significance for future KPPU proceedings, particularly where a party considers that material evidence or substantive arguments have not been adequately addressed in the KPPU’s decision.

Court Judgment now final and binding

At the time of writing this client update, the statutory period for KPPU to file a cassation (appeal) to the Supreme Court (that is, 14 days) has already lapsed. Since the court system indicates that KPPU did not file any appeal within the statutory period, the Court Judgment has already become final and binding, so that all the Sany Group violations found by KPPU are now permanently overturned. Whether the overturning of the violations is a positive development in the application of the Competition Law to discipline businesses in Indonesia is open to debate.

We will continue to monitor any developments in the case and will issue further updates as new information becomes available.