The real problem is that there is no tie-breaker procedure for the knockout phase of the competition. Reaching back into the round-robin for a tie-breaker is always has the potential for strange outcomes.
If this were a pure league, then CCC won and nobody would complain, Nobody would complain if the tie-breaker were the same, which is head-to-head.
If the round robin results were used to to qualify or seed teams in the playoffs, then again, no problems.
But once the knockout starts, that is a different phase and you would prefer the tiebreaker to be something you can decide on the field. In most sports you would get extra time and then possibly penalties.
Since cricket doesn't allow for this, then some sort of Duckworth-Lewis type tiebreaker would be fairest. In addition it would promote less cynical tactics like we have seen here.
A better tie-breaking system if there is a no-result:
1. D/L if there is a minimum number of overs batted by both teams
2. If you can't bowl out the other side in 4 days, then you've lost.
Simple(ish) and decided on the field.
In response to some of the replies to my post above. I don't doubt that T&T would have been just as cynical. I was just commenting that of all sports, cricket is one where fairness is part of the history, and you would have expected less cynicism. Of course, when you have teams using douchebag tactics like below, you should expect anything.
http://www.youtube.com/v/K65_spUU05s