After Apple was fined $38 billion, a French wine and spirits giant fell into the same trap and was fined $600 million by India.

By Wang Xinxǐ Following Apple’s $38-billion fine, it is now the turn of the French wine and spirits giant. After turning India into its largest single market globally, the ‘pig-slaughtering scheme’—a term referring to sudden, heavy regulatory penalties—has finally landed on Pernod Ricard, the French酒业 giant behind Chivas Regal, Absolut Vodka, Royal Salute, and The Glenlivet. According to a Reuters report, court documents filed with the Delhi High Court in late May 2026 revealed that Indian tax authorities demanded the company pay approximately $314 million (nearly ₹30 billion) in back import duties. Should Pernod Ricard lose the case, the total penalty could exceed $600 million. This amount is roughly triple Pernod Ricard’s annual profit at the time. Moreover, India has recently launched an antitrust investigation against the spirits giant. Given Apple’s $38-billion antitrust fine in India, this $600-million penalty may only be the beginning—the larger fines could still lie ahead. Pernod Ricard’s troubles were sown over a decade ago. India is a country characterized by high tariffs and a complex, burdensome tax regime. Multinational corporations entering India often resort to related-party transactions to minimize tax liabilities. Domestic Indian distillation technology lags behind, and low-end alcoholic beverages suffer from poor quality; as a result, the premium segment is entirely dominated by imported whiskies. To protect its domestic liquor industry, India imposes some of the world’s highest punitive tariffs on imported spirits—up to 150%. This renders full, duty-paid imports of finished products commercially unviable due to prohibitive combined tariff and cost burdens. Consequently, all foreign spirits companies—including Pernod Ricard and Diageo—adopt a uniform model in India: importing semi-finished products (i.e., bulk whisky concentrate) for local blending, bottling, and distribution. They import whisky distillate from their overseas parent factories and complete final processing in Indian facilities. This model is legally permissible. However, Pernod Ricard’s Indian subsidiary purchases whisky concentrate from its UK subsidiary at transfer prices set entirely at its own discretion. According to Indian authorities, the company used internal codes instead of disclosing the actual age, malt type, maturation process, and quality grade of the imported concentrate. During subsequent verification and evidence collection, Indian officials found that Pernod Ricard’s declared import value was 67.5% lower than the fair market price. The lower the declared import value, the less duty payable. Thus, the $600-million penalty comprises unpaid duties accrued over more than a decade, plus interest and punitive fines. Clearly, India had been keeping meticulous records—and waited until the right moment to levy a massive penalty. As early as 2022, Reuters reported that Indian customs had issued Pernod Ricard a tax warning totaling approximately $244 million. At the time, Pernod Ricard announced it would halt all new investments in India and even sent a direct open letter to Prime Minister Modi via media channels, warning that ongoing tax disputes were deterring new investment. Thereafter, not until the second half of 2025 did Indian investigative agencies conclude—in September—that Pernod Ricard had “deliberately complicated” its reporting information. A government court filing dated January 24, 2026 further accused the company of failing to disclose the age, composition, and specific ingredients of bulk Scotch whisky concentrate imported from its UK subsidiary, Chivas Brothers. Pernod Ricard was alleged to have undervalued these imported concentrates by approximately 67.49%.

vivo transferred over ₹700 billion out of India—what does this mean?

However, according to unnamed officials involved in the raids, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is investigating how international advertising giants allegedly colluded with certain Indian broadcasters to fix advertising rates while selling ad space to clients—and engaged in collective action to avoid offering discounts on advertising fees. During such raids, CCI officials typically seize documents and record testimonies from company executives. The investigation may then continue for several months, and the entire process remains confidential. If found guilty, media firms could face fines up to three times their profits—calculated annually for each year during which collusion occurred—or 10% of their annual turnover for each year of misconduct, whichever is higher. II. India’s status as a top growth market has drawn fierce competition among global advertising giants—and attracted the insatiable attention of Indian regulators. Over the past decade, as multinational corporations shifted investment risks and restructured global supply chains, India—with its vast labor force and low labor costs—has attracted substantial foreign investment, emerging as one of Asia’s—and indeed the world’s—fastest-growing economies. With rapid economic expansion, India’s advertising market has also grown swiftly. According to GroupM, India ranks as the world’s eighth-largest advertising market, generating $18.5 billion in revenue in 2024 and projected to grow by 9.4% to exceed $20 billion in 2025. This rapidly expanding market has intensified competition among global advertising giants operating in India. GroupM notes that India is becoming the fastest-growing advertising market globally, with digital advertising accounting for 60% of total ad spend. Streaming giants such as JioHotstar, Netflix, and Amazon Prime—as well as online platforms like YouTube—are extremely popular in India. III. Regulatory reform has become an urgent and critical issue in India. On the surface, the CCI’s surprise raids on global advertising giants operating in India signal that Indian regulators are closely monitoring major industries and taking steps to ensure fair competition and prevent market manipulation in India’s rapidly growing advertising and media sector. In reality, however, India suffers from excessive regulation, overly complex and ambiguous regulatory laws, and broad, arbitrary interpretive powers vested in regulatory agencies—problems that severely trouble foreign enterprises operating in India. For example, in October 2023, India’s anti-money laundering agency arrested a Chinese employee of smartphone manufacturer Vivo at its office near New Delhi and conducted a raid on Vivo’s offices in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, accusing the company of illegally transferring funds from India to China. The Enforcement Directorate also accused Vivo of evading customs duties. According to a China Daily report dated October 1, 2023, Indian officials did not even bother to present any evidence supporting their allegations against Vivo—making the arrest all the more puzzling. China Daily reported that on September 28, 2023, Indian income-tax officials raided Lenovo’s offices in Mumbai, Bengaluru, and two other cities, launching an investigation into the Chinese laptop manufacturer. In April 2022, Indian tax authorities froze Xiaomi’s assets worth $676 million—again without providing any substantive evidence to support their accusations.

India Probe of Diageo, Pernod Undermines UK Trade Pact Benefits, Trade Group Says

21 hours ago

A trade group warns India's investigation into bulk Scotch imports undermines India-UK tariff deal benefits. Diageo and Pernod face scrutiny over misclassification claims affecting their reduced tax rates.

reuters

2026-08-02

India Bars Some Diageo, Inbrew Liquor Over Flavouring Violations

2026-08-08

India Warns Diageo Over Misleading Whisky Maturation Claims

2026-08-11

Diageo Challenges India Rum Ban Over Due Process Concerns

2026-08-17

Diageo Agrees to Reformulate India Whisky and Rum After Flavouring Breach, Sources Say

2026-10-19

India Probes Pernod, Diageo Over Scotch Import Tariffs Under Trade Pact