The Competition Commission of India (CCI), vide an order dated 11.12.2025 issued under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002, (the Act) has directed the Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association, Pune District Wine Merchants Association and Association of Progressive Liquor Vendors to cease and desist from anti-competitive conduct found to be in violation of Sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b), read with Section 3(1), of the Act.

The proceedings arose from the Information filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, alleging that these associations collectively prescribed conditions on manufacturers, distributors and sellers of alcoholic beverages, including stipulations on retail margins, new product launch schemes, transportation and delivery terms, cash discounts, credit periods, mandatory launch fees, donations and other commercial terms.

Based on the evidence on record the Commission found that the the associations'  practices of issuing circulars, emails, or other communications to their members prescribing or influencing pricing, margins, discounts, payment terms, transportation charges, or other commercial terms that ought to be independently determined by each enterprise, as well as imposing mandatory requirements on alcoholic beverages manufacturers to obtain NOCs prior to launching new products violate Section 3(3)(a) and Section 3(3)(b), read with Section 3(1) of the Act. The CCI additionally found the office-bearers of these associations liable under Section 48.

The order was passed in Case No.43 of 2019 and a copy is available on the CCI website at www.cci.gov.in.

Liquor trade associations coordinated pricing, margins and mandatory pre-launch clearances, violating competition law prohibiting horizontal restraints. Associations collectively prescribed retail margins, discounts, payment and credit terms, transportation charges, launch fees, mandatory donations and other commercial conditions, and required mandatory pre-launch clearances for manufacturers; such coordinated prescription of commercial terms and mandatory NOCs was found to contravene the statutory prohibition on horizontal restraints and representative office-bearer liability was recorded under the statute's enforcement framework.