Investigation in India into Scotch imports by Diageo and Pernod jeopardizes benefits of UK agreement
Read more
Business Standard
business-standard.com

Investigation in India into Scotch imports by Diageo and Pernod jeopardizes benefits of UK agreement

The Indian Spirits and Wine Association (ISWAI), representing companies such as Diageo and Pernod Ricard, stated that India's decision to exclude large-volume Scotch whisky imports from the reduced tariff system contradicts the terms of the trade agreement between India and the United Kingdom.

According to a letter reviewed by Reuters, India's move to exclude wholesale Scotch supplies from the preferential 75 percent tariff violates provisions agreed upon under the bilateral trade pact between the two countries. Whisky tariffs were one of the complex issues during the lengthy negotiations preceding the agreement's entry into force on July 15. Initially, India agreed to immediately reduce import duties on certain types of Scotch from 150 percent to 75 percent, and subsequently to 40 percent over ten years.

The UK government asserted that 'iconic British products,' including whisky, would benefit from this agreement. However, inspectors from India privately informed the companies that the reduced rate does not apply to bulk Scotch concentrates, marking the first serious dispute regarding the free trade agreement since its commencement.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in India conducted raids at Pernod and Diageo offices and interviewed executives as part of an investigation into whether they incorrectly classified imported goods to obtain the preferential tariff.

Risk of undermining the agreement due to classification issue

In a letter addressed to the Indian Minister of Commerce on Friday, ISWAI indicated that the classification issue 'risks undermining the practical advantage of market access agreed between India and the United Kingdom.' The same letter noted that the 'preferential tariff regime that was agreed... could effectively become unavailable for these imports.'

ISWAI declined to comment on its letter, and the Ministry of Commerce of India did not provide an immediate response. Pernod, for which India is its largest sales market by volume, also refrained from commenting. Diageo did not respond to requests for comment. Both companies had previously told Reuters earlier this week that they are cooperating with Indian authorities in the investigation.

In its initial comment regarding this disagreement, a spokesperson for the UK government stated: 'We are working with the Government of India to resolve this matter to ensure that British businesses can export according to the tariffs agreed in the trade agreement.'

Disputes over customs duties have long been a sensitive point for foreign investors in India, who have in the past faced demands for the payment of large amounts of back taxes. Such disputes have involved companies like Samsung and Volkswagen.

Pernod has faced antitrust cases in India and a demand for a refund of $314 million from Indian authorities, accusing the company of under-declaring the value of some imported goods. The company denies the allegations.

Significant implications for India's beverage sector

The ISWAI letter highlights the turmoil caused by this investigation in India's alcohol market, which is valued at $65 billion. According to Crisil Ratings, the UK accounts for nearly 75 percent of imported alcoholic beverages in India, with Scotch whisky being the main driver.

Indian government inspectors informed the companies that they are not benefiting from the reduced 75 percent tariff on bulk Scotch concentrate imports. These concentrates must be declared under a customs classification that incurs a duty of 150 percent, according to three sources directly familiar with the situation, as reported by Reuters.

Pernod and Diageo import bulk concentrates, blending them with other ingredients to produce popular Indian brands such as Royal Stag, Blenders Pride, and McDowell's. According to three sources, the companies, including Diageo and Pernod, believe that the concentrates imported from the UK should benefit from the new, lower tariff rate. ISWAI stated in its letter that the India-UK agreement explicitly provides for a preferential tariff regime for whisky in the relevant commodity codes.

The letter also stated that an urgent clarification could ensure the realization of the market access benefits agreed by India and Britain, 'avoiding uncertainty and disruption for legitimate industry participants.'

On Saturday, the Scotch Whisky Association of Great Britain told Reuters in a statement that the import of bulk Scotch is crucial for the overall success of whisky in India, and that adherence to the core principles of the bilateral pact is vital. The association, which includes members such as Chivas Brothers from Diageo and Pernod, added that the industry 'is committed to working in partnership with the governments of the UK and India to facilitate the deal' so that its benefits can be activated.

Similar stories

How the US changed tariffs on Russian oil: from 500% to 0% for countries including India
Read more
www.aajtak.in

How the US changed tariffs on Russian oil: from 500% to 0% for countries including India

On Saturday, Donald Trump granted tariff exemptions for countries purchasing Russian oil. Countries such as India and China were given a temporary waiver of the 100 percent tariff. Initially, there was discussion about imposing a 500 percent tariff, which was then gradually reduced to a 0 percent tariff rule.

Some experts believe that this tariff waiver occurred at a time when the US itself had to purchase diesel fuel from Russia as part of a major deal. Under these circumstances, the question arises as to how the US can apply tariffs to other countries. Furthermore, negotiations continue between India and the US, and Washington is likely avoiding measures that could worsen the dialogue with India.

Experts also suggest that similar steps are being taken regarding China, leading Trump to decide to suspend the introduction of tariffs in the interest of the US. However, this does not mean that tariffs will never be imposed against buyers of Russian oil, as the US reserves the right to apply them at any time.

As the war between Russia and Ukraine continues, the US claims that financial support for Russia is provided through the sale of its oil, which contributes to prolonging the conflict. In this regard, the US proposed introducing tariffs for countries purchasing Russian oil. Initially, it was proposed to impose a tariff of up to 500% on the import of Russian oil and gas, with the aim of effectively denying these countries access to the American market.

In January 2026, Trump supported a bill promoted by the late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. Graham argued that such a threat would allow the US president to pressure India, China, and Brazil into reducing their purchases of discounted crude Russian oil.

However, the initial plan with a 500% tariff was not maintained. A later version of the law limited the maximum tariff level to 100% for major buyers of Russian energy. The American president could use tariffs on goods imported from countries buying Russian oil and gas to encourage them to change their procurement model, although the potential rate was significantly lower than the previous proposal.

Graham's law, signed by Trump on September 18, 2026, authorized tariffs of up to 100% on the five largest global importers of Russian energy. It also expanded sanctions against Russia and provided measures against organizations attempting to circumvent existing restrictions. This change was significant for India, as such a large-scale tariff could affect not only crude oil imports but also bilateral trade, complicating negotiations and putting pressure on Indian goods entering the US.

The next change occurred on October 17, when Trump utilized the exemption provision within the Graham Act. His executive order suspended the application of restrictions, boundaries, and duties under the law, citing US national interests. This order did not repeal the law nor did it permanently deprive the president of the right to use it; instead, it temporarily suspended its effect, leaving him the option to reinstate them later.

Popular