IMPORTANT POINT
Central Consumer Protection Authority can exercise its power suo motu and to protect consumers’ interest it can pass any suitable order.

JUDGEMENT

Heard Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Harsh Hiroo Gursahani, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate, for the respondent.

2. Above appeal has been filed from the order of Central Consumer Protection Authority dated 14.11.2022, passed in Case No.J-25/72/2021, directing the appellant to recall 1033 pressure cookers, sold by the appellant in the country, refunding its price to the consumers, within 45 days and imposed a penalty of Rs.100000/-, for selling the pressure cooker, in violation of Quality Control Order, 2020.

3. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, in exercise of its power under Section 17 read with Section 25, of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, issued Domestic Pressure Cooker (Quality Control) Order, 2020, (for short the Order) vide Notification dated 21.01.2020, published in the Gazette of India on 21.01.2020, making it mandatory for domestic pressure cooker to conform to the corresponding Indian Standard and bear Standard Mark under a licence from Bureau of Indian Standards, as per Scheme-I of Schedule-II of Bureau of Indian Standard (Conformity Assessment) Regulation, 2018, w.e.f. 01.08.2020. Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, in exercise of its power under Section 16 read with Section 25, of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016, vide Notification dated 23.06.2020 published in the Gazette of India on 23.06.2020, changed the enforcement date w.e.f. 01.02.2021.

4. Cloudtail India Private Limited (the appellant) was doing e-commerce through Amazon website i.e. www.amazon.in in India. The appellant listed ‘Amazon Basics Stainless Steel Outer Lid Pressure Cooker, 4 Litre’ on above website and sold 1033 pressure cookers in India after 01.02.2021. These pressure cookers were manufactured by “Zhejiang Supor Company Limited, Damaiyu Economic Investment Zone, Yuhuan, Taizhou, Zhjiang, China” and bears “European Commission Standard” mark as established in the European Union and were imported into India, prior to issue of the Order.

5. Central Consumer Protection Authority (the respondent) is a statutory authority constituted under Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short as the Act). The respondent, in exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Act, issued notice dated 29.11.2021 to the appellant to show cause as it were selling pressure cooker in violation of the Order, which was liable to be held as defective, violative of consumer right and amounts to unfair trade practice, within the meaning of the Act.

6. The appellant submitted its reply dated 11.01.2022, stating that the pressure cookers in question were manufactured by “Zhejiang Supor Company Limited, Damaiyu Economic Investment Zone, Yuhuan, Taizhou, Zhjiang, China” and conforms to the “European Commission Standard” mark as established in the European Union Directives-2014/68/EU granted by TUV SUD, valid up to 13.12.2030 and holds a valid certification of conformance. Above company was an importer of the said product across the world including the countries like U.S.A., Canada and France etc. In order to ensure that the product is of requisite quality, the appellant used to carry out a pre-shipment inspection by a nominated third party inspection agency. When it passes the criteria specified in inspection protocol, the product is imported. The appellant imported the pressure cookers after obtaining inspection report. There was no complaint, related to safety of the pressure cooker, since its introduction in the market. The appellant has suspended import of this product in India prior to 01.02.2021, i.e. enforcement of the Order. The Order mandates domestic pressure cooker to certify and conform to Indian Standard IS 2347:2017. Section 17 of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 deals with deceitful use of BIS mark by the manufacturer and is not applicable for an importer. The pressure cooker is neither ‘defective’ within the meaning of Section 2(10) nor