Price-Fixing Circulars: CCI Holds Three Maharashtra Liquor Associations Guilty Of Cartelisation

The Competition Commission of India CCI) has held that three liquor merchants' associations operating in Maharashtra engaged in anti-competitive practices by issuing circulars prescribing prices, margins and other commercial terms, illegally distorting competition in the liquor retail market.

In an order dated December 11, 2025, a coram led by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur, along with Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag, ruled that such conduct squarely attracts the presumption of anti-competitive effect under Section 3(3) (cartelisation) of the Competition Act.

The Commission observed that practices restricting independent business decision-making “lie at the core of Section 3 of the Act.”

The case arose from a 2019 complaint filed by an alcoholic beverage manufacturer, against the Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association, the Pune District Wine Merchants Association, and the Association of Progressive Liquor Vendors.

The informant alleged that these associations functioned as a cartel by dictating uniform retail margins, discounts, credit terms, transportation charges and mandatory “launch fees” for introducing new liquor products.

Acting on the complaint, the CCI on January 21, 2020, directed the Director General to investigate. In its report submitted on July 29, 2022, the DG found that the associations had issued circulars and Letters of Introduction that effectively fixed prices and restricted independent pricing decisions of retailers and manufacturers, in violation of Section 3 of the Act.

The associations denied wrongdoing, claiming they were merely representative bodies acting in the interest of small retailers. They argued that the letters issued were non-binding, pro-competitive and part of long-standing industry practice, and that pricing in the liquor sector is heavily regulated by state excise policies.

Rejecting these submissions, the CCI held that decisions taken by associations of enterprises engaged in identical trade fall squarely within the scope of Section 3(3). It noted that requiring manufacturers to obtain mandatory no-objection certificates before launching products, coupled with prescribing uniform margins and schemes, eliminated independent commercial decision-making.

“Practices that facilitate coordination among competitors or impose uniform trading conditions cannot be defended under the guise of efficiency enhancement or market facilitation. Such conduct, by its very nature, restricts independent decision-making by market participants and impedes competition on price and terms of trade, which lies at the core of Section 3 of the Act.,” the Commission said.

The CCI further emphasised that while associations may represent members' interests, they cannot step into commercial decision-making.

“Adjustments to margins in response to market or fiscal changes are commercial matters to be determined bilaterally between manufacturers and individual retailers, not collectively through an association,” it observed, adding that collective enforcement of margins amounts to price-fixing.

The Commission also held several office bearers personally liable under Section 48 of the Act, finding that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the associations during the relevant period.

However, noting that the associations were first-time offenders and had undertaken to discontinue the impugned practices, the CCI refrained from imposing monetary penalties.

Instead, it directed them and their office bearers to cease and desist from such conduct, warning that any future violation would attract serious consequences.

Click Here To Read/Download Order