Skip to main content

Amazon fined INR 25K for not displaying Country Of Origin on Products

 Ecommerce major Amazon has been fined Rs. 25000 for not displaying mandatory information, including the country of origin, of products sold on its platform.


Last month, the consumer affairs ministry had issued notices to ecommerce majors Flipkart & Amazon for not displaying such information.


The ministry had also asked states to ensure that all ecommerce firms comply with the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules.


The penalty has been imposed on Amazon as its reply to the notice was not found satisfactory, as per the order issued by the ministry dated November 19.


As per law, Amazon has been fined INR 25K per director for the first offence, a senior official of the ministry said. Flipkart has not been fined, the official added.


An email sent to Amazon on the matter did not elicit any immediate response, reported the news agency.


In the notice issued last month, the consumer affairs ministry had said, “It has been brought into notice that some of the ecommerce entities are not displaying the mandatory declaration on digital platforms required under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.”


In similarly worded notices, the ministry had said Flipkart India Pvt Ltd & Amazon Development Centre India Pvt Ltd have to ensure that all mandatory declarations are displayed on the digital & electronic network used for e-commerce transactions.


In Oct 2020 the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had asked why Flipkart & Amazon haven’t followed rules under Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.


The letter addressed to Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. & Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd. by MCA, had specific links to the inventory, which lacked the details, as required under the Legal Metrology.


Over the past months, e-commerce & food delivery firms have had several meetings with the consumer affairs department as well as officials from the Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade (DPIIT), regarding the addition of ‘country of origin’ tag to online product listings.The DPIIT had said that the Govt had directed ecommerce firms to comply with this requirement by Sept 30.


Initially, the Govt was keen on a 1 Aug deadline, but the move was opposed by retailers. Ecommerce firms such as Flipkart wrote to the Govt that they will need at least 6 months to finish the process.


In July, the High Court of Delhi had issued notices to Amazon & Flipkart on a plea seeking to display the names of the manufacturing countries for products on their websites.

 ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS"
















We are India’s Leading Law Firm
















“The firm has always strives to create and implement innovative and effective methods of providing cost-effective, quality representation and services for our clients and will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our valued clients.”
































–    DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA (ADVOCATE, FOUNDER-LEXIS AND COMPANY).
































Get in Touch
















LEXIS AND COMPANY.
































C/O: DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA.
































OFFICE: A1B/26, JANAKPURI, GROUND FLOOR,
































NEW DELHI,, DELHI, 110058.
































INDIA.
































lexisandcompany@gmail.com
































CALL: +91-9830333388.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree