| dc.description.abstract | Evidence has a very essential role to decide whether there is a violation or not in handling price fixing case. However the evidentiary of price fixing case cannot be separated from the use of economic evidence because it is almost impossible to find the written agreement among the business actors. For example in the price fixing of Scooter Matic (Skutik) case in Indonesia. This research tries to elaborate the application of economic evidence in the case of Yamaha and Honda Scooter Matic (Skutik) in Indonesia. Hence, there are so many parties question about how does the KPPU verify the economic evidence in the evidentiary process in handling Yamaha and Honda Skutik case in Indonesia? And also try to figure out whether the application of economic evidence already compatible with the evidentiary process relating to the guidance evidence in the Competition Procedural Law or not? This research is a normative-comparative approach with the process of collecting data was done through both literature studies by delve as many as possible knowledge and information from the books, journal, articles, documents and news. In the process of analyzing data during the process of this research, it is applied the qualitative method of analysis. It was done by describing the data, knowledge and information through description or explanation which is assessed by the opinions of the experts, by laws, and also by the researcher’s own arguments. Then qualifying it and connecting the theory or doctrine related to the formulation of the problem in this study, as well making conclusions to determine the results and also recommendation. The result of this research are the legal considerations of KPPU’s decision in the Yamaha and Honda Skutik case are based on indirect evidence that conducted an analysis using the methods of structural and behavioral factors to meet sufficient preliminary evidence requirements as the guidance evidence. Only structural factors or behavior factors by business actors are not sufficient to prove the existence of a price fixing. However, as long as both communication evidence and economic evidence forming a series of events that can be concluded it is a violating the law then the qualifications is part of guidance evidence. While guidance evidence is the knowledge of the Commission Assembly by which it is known and believed to be true. In Yamaha and Honda Skutik case, besides it is using the guidance evidence which is supported by the indirect evidence. There are also the expert testimony and witness testimony using in this case. Thus, it is already compatible with the evidentiary process in the Competition Procedural Law. | en_US |
