Full Text
REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
CG-WB-E-22022025-261211
EXTRAORDINARY
PART II-Section 3-Sub-section (ii)
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 913]
NEW DELHI THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2025/PHALGUNA1, 1946
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
(Office of the Jute Commissioner)
ORDER
Kolkata, the 12th February, 2025
S.O. 921(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 the 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
01.11.2024 has submitted their written arguments, which are as follows
“We would like to submit here with great agony and pain that we had received a complaint from the District
Manager, Pungrain Ludhiana for 48 bales being supplied by us against PCSO No
PBPGK170424MJI30972 dated 17-04-2024 to KHANNA DEPO. It is of course a matter of great
unfortunate mistake on our part. Here, we would like to apprise you that mill's higher authorities were
fully unaware about the said discrepancies and after having complaint from the consignee we had
investigated and found that during night shift the Brander wrongly branded the gunny bags with 22-23
forma instead of 24-25 forma and later on they tried to correct the same with 24-25 forma without our
knowledge. Thus, had might be caused double branded on few gunny bags.
However, before our joint inspection hold on 27-07-2024 at KHANNA DEPO we were verbally forced to
write the UNDERTAKING and in the given letter we were forced to write the assurance of replacement of
double branded bags. But we found no double branded bags and the quality was upto the mark as per
inspection thereon.
Under the circumstances as stated above, for the sake of livelihood of the mills workers and the dependants
thereon, we hereby request you to kindly excuse us for this time. We thus hereby assure you that henceforth
in future we shall be very much cautious in the matter and will not give you scope of complaint"
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 un-baled and are re-inspected 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.
It is understood from the joint inspection report that during joint inspection held on 27.07.2024 (for 36 intact
bales and 10 bales in loose condition), the sample bags drawn at random were found to comply with the
relevant BIS specification i.e. IS: 16186-2014 (as amended), and relevant branding/printing stipulations as
per the PCSO. However, as per the purported letter issued by M/s Mahadeo Jute & Industries Limited, during
the joint inspection dated 27.07.2024, the jute mill company has prima facie admitted the alleged commission
of offence, by themselves; and further goes on to commit that, they will change the wrongly branded B-Twill
jute bags all by themselves.
On one hand the complaint has not been sustained in the joint inspection of the disputed bales held in the
presence of all the stakeholders' in which the bales have been drawn at random by the participants for the
joint inspection; while on the other hand the supplier jute mill company has sou moto given an undertaking
that it shall replace all the 'double branded' or wrongly branded bags.
Though, the mill company has submitted in its argument that it has been ‘forced' to submit that undertaking
on the spot during the joint inspection; this adjudicating forum would however like to reserve its views on
the said claim of the jute mill company for the time being.
However, to bring the stalemate to a reasonable conclusion, as an onetime dictate, it is directed that M/s
Mahadeo Jute & Industries Ltd. shall replace all the wrongly branded jute bags 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 may bring up the matter before this adjudicating authority after the elapse of 30 days, seeking
the quantum of financial recovery, as deem fit by this adjudicating authority, from the pending bills pertaining
to the jute mill company.
Needless to mention that the consignee is directed to facilitate necessary access to the authorised
representatives of the jute mill company during the course of such replacement.
Let this Order be circulated to all the parties' forthwith.
[F. No. Jute(T)-6/1/178/GN(12)/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.