Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
सी.जी.-डब्लू.बी.-अ.-21022025-261216
CG-WB-E-21022025-261216
EXTRAORDINARY
PART II-Section 3-Sub-section (ii)
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 912]
NEW DELHI, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2025/PHALGUNA 1, 1946
1331 GI/2025
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
(Office of the Jute Commissioner)
ORDER
Kolkata, the 12th February, 2025
S.O. 920(E). — This is pursuant to the hearing held on 20.09.2024 and subsequent issue of the
Record of Proceedings by the Department in favour of the stakeholders vide office letter dated 29.10.2024.
Vide aforementioned Record of Proceedings; both the parties were given liberty to file written objection /
argument before this adjudicating authority. Subsequently, the mill coy. vide letter under Ref. No. Nil dated
06.11.2024 has submitted their written arguments, which are as follows
“We like to submit that the statements made in the last paragraph of page-4 is totally uncalled for. It is
unfortunate that our good gesture of replacing 38 bales of A Type Jute Bags is being construed as an
admission of guilt. More so the Fact Finding Team constituted by your Office has clearly recorded that
the sampled bales were found to be as per the relevant BIS specification. However a request was made for
further joint inspection which is beyond the norms. The report of Fact Finding Team is final and binding.
During Joint Inspection, we have requested the consignee as also the Inspection Team to segregate the
528 bales as per the Inspection Certificate of the inspection agency IJIRA. Unfortunately such directions
was not adhered to either by the Joint Inspection Team or the consignee and instead arranged the bales
for inspection as suited to them and requested all the parties to sign a pre prepared report although the
said report was signed by all the parties but on being protested about the manner of inspection it was once
again decided to have a Re- Joint inspection which is scheduled on 26.7.2024. Even in the Re-joint
inspection the consignment were not Segregated as per the inspection certificate lots and it was inspected
as per their own terms.
In the meantime on 24.6.2024 and 25.6.2024 when the initial inspection was conducted although all bales
/ bags were found to be as per BIS standard yet on the basis of the request made by the Consignee we
graciously accepted to replace 38 bales of Type-A. Same is also reflected in the Re-Joint inspection report
dated 26.07.2024.
However as a good gesture we have already assured the consignee to replace 38 bales A Type Jute Bales,
to end all controversy. We will do so within a short span of time and shall let you know the date when such
38 bales would be dispatched"
The Consignee vide letter under Ref. No.DFS-FP01027/3/2024(Comp.792238) / 1271 dated 24.12.24 has
submitted their written arguments, which are as follows
"the number of bales which are actually defective w.r.t overlapped branding/printing/poor quality/
underweight could not be ascertained unless all the bags unbaled and are reinspected and the same has
been submitted by Investigating Agency too as mentioned in JCO letter Jute(T)-6/1/178/Pungrain/2017/-
I.(E)-I/3025115/24 dated 29-10-24. Therefore, keeping the Investigating Agency's submission and keeping
the high amount of work during the procurement season for SPAs in mind, it is against practicality and
against the spirit of whole process of procuring bales, to segregate the defective bales for replacement as
the exact quantity can only be ascertained after opening of whole lot. So this office is of the view that the
punitive action should be taken against the concerned mill as per rules/regulations to set the precedent so
no further deviation happen with the rules in any further deliveries along with orders to replace the whole
lot of bales"
The aforesaid submissions of both the mill coy. and the consignee have been kept on record.
From the joint inspection report, it is understood that during joint inspection held in the presence of all the
stakeholders on 26.07.2024, out of total complaint lot of 528 numbers of bales, 438 number of Type-B B-
Twill sacking bales were offered by the consignee to the joint inspection team, which was found as per the
relevant BIS specification. However, as per the letter purportedly issued by M/s Sunbeam w.r.t. joint
inspection on 26.07.2024, the mill coy. has admitted the alleged commission of offence of supplying 38
number of Type-A B-Twill bales of inferior quality, by themselves vide their letter submitted on the spot
during the joint inspection on 26.07.2024.
On one hand the complaint has not been sustained in the joint inspection of the disputed bales which were
presented for inspection before the joint inspection team by the consignee; while on the other hand the
supplier jute mill company has sou moto given an undertaking that it shall replace all the 38 numbers of
disputed bales (Type A bales) at its own risk and cost.
In order to conclude the matter to a reasonable finality, it is therefore directed that M/s Sunbeam Vanijya Pvt.
Ltd. shall replace all the disputed 38 bales at their own risk and cost within 30 days from the date of issue of
this order and submit a compliance report to the department forthwith including documentary proof of
acceptance of the replaced goods by the consignee, failing which the Department should initiate the recovery
of equivalent cost of 38 bales from the pending bills for payment pertaining to the jute mill company. It is
however needless to mention that the consignee should facilitate necessary access to the authorised
representatives of jute mill company during such replacement.
Let this Order be circulated to all the parties' forthwith.
[F. No. Jute(T)-6/1/178/GN(13)/2019-I(E)]
MOLOY CHANDAN CHAKRABORTTY, Jute Commissioner
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
GORAKHA NATH YADAVA Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Date: 2025.02.21 16:37:41 +0530