M/s Nobin Fashion gained significant attention recently for selling high-quality products at significantly lower prices than competitors. A decision by Nabin Fashion to sell Punjabi garments at an unprecedented Tk 300 per unit has ignited fierce public interest and local trader backlash supported by law enforcers.
Some video footage on social media showed that the ‘Nobin Fashion’ shop was shut down by neighbouring traders, allegedly due to its comparatively lower prices. Some local traders objected, likening the sale of low-priced products to ‘relief distribution’.
Nobin Fashion’s management alleged that local market syndicates, in collusion with some law enforcement officials, deliberately obstructed operations and issued threats unless promotional content was removed from social media.
Enamul Hasan Nobin, the entrepreneur, claimed his refusal to inflate prices led to threats and the forced closure of his shops. He said through social media that the profits from his business are entirely dedicated to supporting the poor and providing medical treatment for the helpless.
He emphasised that the company employed individuals with disabilities, transgender employees and people recovering from drug addiction-arguably allowing the firm to source products at lower costs and sell them at unprecedentedly low prices.
The strategy of lower prices needs to elaborate on the competition issues, including allegations of predatory pricing, market disruption and the formation of retailer "syndicates" or cartels aimed at enforcing minimum price levels.
Predatory pricing is the illegal business practice of setting prices for a product unrealistically low to eliminate the competition. Predatory pricing is illegal under competition laws in many jurisdictions, including Bangladesh. Section 18 of Bangladesh's Competition Act 2012, which prohibits abuse of dominance and unfair pricing practices detrimental to competition.
The local business associations raised objections to the sale of panjabis for roughly BDT 300, which is over 90% below prevailing market rates (competing with prices usually above BDT 4,500). The syndicate allegedly pressured the seller to increase prices and stop marketing on social media, using threats of closure and intimidation.
Under general competition principles, selling at low prices is considered healthy competition. However, if a dominant company deliberately sells below cost to eliminate competitors, it can be considered illegal predatory pricing (pricing of goods or services at such a low level that other firms cannot compete and are forced to leave the market). A dominant position generally refers to a significant degree of market power that allows a firm to behave independently of its competitors, customers and consumers.
It is important to note that determining whether pricing behaviour is predatory is complex and requires a careful analysis of the facts. It would depend on several factors, including the specific prices charged, production costs, the company's market share and the competitive landscape.
Predatory pricing requires us to explore the underlying motives of market actors. Factors such as the desire to eliminate competitors, establish market dominance or inhibit new entrants can drive businesses to adopt predatory tactics.
Predatory pricing is an anti-competitive strategy where a dominant firm sets prices below cost (often average variable cost) to intentionally incur short-term losses, forcing competitors out of the market or deterring new entrants.
Once competition is weakened, the firm raises prices to regain profits, violating antitrust laws. Nobin Fashion is not a dominant company considering the market size and production and sales outlets of Nobin Fashion.
Usually, only large firms with significant financial reserves can afford to endure the losses necessary for this strategy. If one company cuts its prices unrealistically low or even below cost, other competitors will be forced to abandon the market.
Even if a company could use predatory pricing to drive competitors out of business, the strategy would succeed only if the revenue lost to the predatory company through the lower pricing could be recovered quickly.
The situation is not an issue of dominant position but rather a law-and-order issue, when a group of retailers colludes to dictate prices (fixing prices at 4,500 BDT for panjabis, for example) and forces others to comply, this is commonly illegal price-fixing and cartel behaviour.
Such practices should hurt consumers by removing the option to buy lower-priced products, reducing consumer welfare. In this incidence the owner of Nabin Fashion left the country, citing safety risks after being threatened by the syndicate, highlighting a violent resistance to price competition.
Predatory pricing doesn’t always work since the predator, as well as the competition, is losing revenue. The predator must raise prices eventually. At that point, new competitors will emerge.
The Competition Commission of Bangladesh, in "Press Release: CCB Fines 13 Companies for Price-Fixing in the Fertiliser Market", 2022, states that predatory pricing was responsible for driving out of business at least 10% of small businesses in Bangladesh in the past five years.
Authorities need to intervene against cartels that force competitors to close shops to offer lower prices. Ensuring a fair playing field requires protecting smaller, disruptive businesses from threats by established local syndicates.
In a surprising move, a Dhaka court ordered on 24th March 2026 to reopen a shop named 'Nobin Fashion' in the capital's Moghbazar area within 24 hours and also expressed dissatisfaction over the role of police in the closure of the store.
The complaints of predicatory pricing by any organisation that has a dominant position in the market are not very new. The Bangladesh Competition Commission (BCC) is investigating a complaint by Robi Axiata PLC against Grameenphone (GP), accusing the country's largest mobile operator of abusing its dominant market position through predatory pricing and excessive subsidies.
Robi alleges that Grameenphone, with its profitability, sells SIMs for free or at deep discounts, bundling them with incentives, which distorts market competition. The complaint, filed with the BCC on January 21, 2025, alleges that Grameenphone's business practices violate the Competition Act 2012.
The competitors aggrieved in the Panjabi market could go to the Competition Commission with their complaints rather than taking the law into their own hands or letting the Competition Commission take over the matter for them.
The action of the Dhaka Court is commendable. Let the matter be decided in the eyes of law of the land, not by a syndicate or immoral act of law enforcers. The Competition Commission may come forward to take over the responsibility, as this is within the mandate to resolve the issue of predatory pricing.
