Where is the non-alcoholic beer market heading to? Companies and brands. Baltika as a democratic leader. Heineken – how do you shake up the market and shove up the competitors. AB InBev Efes – premium corner. Non-alcoholic import beer. Non-alcoholic beer - Who drinks it? General conclusions. Summer beer. ...
“Catalogue of Russian Beer Producers 2020” includes 1285 businesses ranging from large subsidiaries of international companies to rather small restaurant and craft breweries.This issue has 171 more breweries compared to 2018 (155 business have been excluded and 326 have been included).Starting from 2019, FTS has been publishing data on excise payments by brewers (delayed by 1.5 years), that can be translated into beer equivalent for most of producers.Depending on the volumes, we ranked the brewers that provided information by 6 groups (see pic.). At one end of the production spectrum there are 2/3 of breweries outputting less than 10 thousand decaliters. Their net share amounts to as little as 0.2% of the total beer output volume. On the other end there are 6 federal groups accounting for almost 80%. ...
Dmitry Nekrasov’s Philosophy — on the Past, Present and Future of Ukrainian Brewing IndustryA meeting with Dmitry Nekrasov always turns into a training course: “Introduction to brewing business“. We are talking to a clever “playing trainer“ a person that can be called a godfather of the Ukrainian craft. He has a dozen of successful projects to his name. Dmitry told us about craft beer in Ukraine, on market cycles, on specifity of operating in retail and HoReCa, on union of Ukrainian brewers and certainly, how a brewery of his own, First Dnipro Brewery is doing.
The market of import beer in Russia: review and databasesThe market of import beer is rapidly growing and changing. But while in the past years it was growing due to brands variety, in 2019 major and affordable brands from TOP-10 were developing actively. It seems that the fact of a brand origin from far abroad counties, even if it is not well known but has moderate price and good distribution provides for million liters of sales in the territory of Russia. Among distributors AB InBev Efes was far behind, yet the role of Baltika and suppliers of the second row got more important. The boom of German brands was followed by stagnation of import from other traditional regions (and Belarus) instead the supplies from Mexico, Lithuania and Asian countries grew considerably.
India. HC declares Punjab excise policy provision invalid
The L-1 or wholesale licencee was mandatorily required to purchase liquor from the L-1A licencee. The L-1A licencee, in turn, was to purchase liquor from breweries and distilleries. The earlier arrangement permitted the L-1 wholesale licencee to take liquor directly from the manufacturing company.
The petitioner’s case was that the new L-1A licence was created just to monopolise liquor trade in Punjab.
A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Kumar Mittal and Raj Rahul Garg held the provision to be invalid and inoperative to the extent that it did not prescribe the manner and method for issuance of the consent letter by the manufacturers or the distilleries. At the same time, the Bench made it clear that the state was empowered to incorporate under-challenge sub-clause (ii) of clause 2.14 in the policy.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Amarjit Singh Sidhu, contending that according to sub-clause (ii), a manufacturing company could not issue consent letter to more than one entity. But parameters for the manufacturers to issue consent letter were not laid down in the entire policy. Even the criteria for cancellation of consent or authority letter issued by the manufacturing unit are not mentioned in the policy.
The petitioner’s counsels said L-1A licence was created to extend monopoly to “Chadha, Malhotra, Doda and AD groups”.
Dubbing the groups major stakeholders in the liquor business in Punjab, the petitioner’s counsels said these were instrumental in influencing the excise department for creating the new category of L-1A licence for their own economic interest.
The Bench ruled that the state was empowered to frame policy for liquor sale and the courts “shall be loathed for interfering unless it was shown to be discriminatory or arbitrary”.
The creation of L-1A category between the distilleries and wholesale L-1 licencee to augment revenue and stop leakage, as such, could not be termed arbitrary. The Bench said that sub clause (ii), however, did not prescribe the manner or method for the distillery or the competent authority to issue the letter. “It does not satisfy the requirement of being transparent, objective and giving level-playing field to all applicants. The procedure does not eliminate the vices of unfairness, unreasonableness, discrimination, non-transparency, favouritism or nepotism in the award of authority/consent letter to an applicant,” it said.
The Bench concluded it would be open to respondent-authorities to make appropriate amendment and prescribe necessary guidelines to manufacturers/distilleries for issuing letters to eligible applicants by draw of lots, auction or other mode providing equal opportunities in a transparent and objective manner.
The respondents could also retain such right with the authority concerned, if so required.
“If after taking corrective measures and inviting fresh applications, no fresh offer or application comes forth, the allotments, if any, already made shall continue for the rest of the period,” it added.
10 Июн. 2016