Pernod Ricard’s bid to sell spirits in New Delhi blocked
An Indian court has denied Pernod Ricard’s plea to resume selling spirits in New Delhi, piling onto the legal and regulatory challenges the spirits maker is currently battling in the region.
Pernod Ricard, the French spirits giant behind Absolut Vodka and Jameson, is in the throes of a formal anti-trust investigation over allegations that it secured exclusive retail arrangements in New Delhi to favour its brands. The company also faces an ongoing probe into whether it colluded with retailers to boost its market share in New Delhi, which it denies.
Due to the ongoing investigation, Delhi city officials have repeatedly rejected Pernod Ricard’s bids to sell in the city. But the liquor giant has repeatedly argued that it has not been convicted and so it should be granted a licence.
However, on Friday the judge argued that the company was “ineligible” due to the ongoing investigation.
Pernod counts India as its biggest market globally by volume, and the city of New Delhi typically used to account for about 5% of its countrywide sales before it became unable to sell its products.
Partner Content
The latest licence rejection from city authorities came in February, prompting the company to approach the court claiming three years of denials had left its business “hopelessly fettered” in New Delhi.
Scotch whisky tax investigation
Earlier this week, Pernod India was also accused of withholding the real compensation and age of its Scotch whiskies in order to pay lower taxes in the market – something the company denies
The spirits company has been instructed to pay US$314 million in back taxes. This is because, the court says, Pernod undervalued its bulk Scotch concentrate imports by 67.49%, slashing the historical 150% tariff that New Delhi imposed on Scotch imports to the country in 2007.
Pernod India issued a statement in response, saying it “rejects any suggestion of wrongdoing” and is “addressing this matter through the appropriate legal channels and remains confident in its position.”
The company argues that it was not given access to key pricing data used by investigators and that the findings are “grossly violative of the doctrine of natural justice.”
Related news
Drinks giants club together to sue Indian state
