Profiteering Charges against Amway India dropped for want of Evidence [Read Order]

The National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA) has dropped the anti-profiteering charges against Amway India as the investigating authority could not procure any evidence against the respondent-Company.

In the instant case, the applicant had contended that the respondent- Company failed to pass the benefit of the reduction in the GST rates from 28% to 18% on selected items to its customers or Amway Business Owners (ABOs).

The Director General, Anti-profiteering, CBIC submitted that the Respondent was a direct selling Company with more than 5,50,000 ABOs and was selling about 140 products covering five categories and had nationwide presence with over 130 sale offices, 4 regional mother warehouses, 3 regional hubs and 34 city warehouses. It was further submitted that the Applicant No. 1 had neither provided the description of the items nor provided any of the details of the supplier or any evidence that the Respondent had indulged in profiteering and therefore, in the absence of the description of any product, the name of any supplier and any specific evidence of profiteering by the above Respondent, no further investigation could be conducted.

Dismissing the application, the authority found that the investigating authority had not recommended initiation of proceedings against him under section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 as there was no specific evidence of profiteering against him.

“Amongst other things, he has also stated that the above Applicant had also recommended that no meaningful investigation could be conducted against him. He has further stated that in view of the report submitted by the Applicant No. 2, the allegation of profiteering had not been proved against him and therefore the present proceeding should be dropped,” the order said.

It was held that the Applicant No. 1 had not supplied details of the products or the invoices vide which he had bought them from the Respondent in spite of repeated requests made by the Applicant No. 2 and therefore, the investigation conducted in the allegation levelled by the Applicant No. 2 against the Respondent could not establish profiteering for want of cogent and reliable evidence and hence no violation of the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act.