&w=3840&q=100)
CCPA issues notices over illegal walkie-talkie sales on e-commerce sites
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on Friday issued 13 notices to several digital marketplaces for listing and selling walkie-talkies without proper frequency disclosure, licensing information, or Equipment Type Approval (ETA), which it said violated the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The move comes amid rising tensions at the India–Pakistan border. 'Walkie-talkies are being sold on e-commerce platforms without mandatory and clear disclosures regarding the requirement of a wireless operating licence or compliance with applicable laws. The product listings for walkie-talkies do not specify whether the device requires a licence from the concerned authority for use,' the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution said in a statement on Friday evening.
The e-commerce platforms include Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, OLX, Facebook, and Indiamart, among others, it added.
'The omission of details such as frequency range, licensing obligations under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and the Use of Low Power, Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018, as well as the potential legal consequences of unauthorised use, misleads consumers into believing that the devices are freely operable by the general public,' the ministry stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
Govt asks edible oil industry to pass tax cut benefits to retail users
The government had reduced the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on crude edible oils-specifically crude sunflower oil, soybean oil, and palm oil-from 20 per cent to 10 per cent on 31 May New Delhi The Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) held a meeting with leading edible oil associations and industry stakeholders. An advisory was issued, instructing them to pass on the benefits of the reduced duty to consumers, said the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. The government had reduced the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on crude edible oils—specifically crude sunflower oil, soybean oil, and palm oil—from 20 per cent to 10 per cent on 31 May. This revision has widened the import duty differential between crude and refined edible oils from 8.75 per cent to 19.25 per cent. The advisory directed all stakeholders to immediately revise the Price to Distributors (PTD) and Maximum Retail Price (MRP) in accordance with the new import duty, ensuring that cost savings are transmitted across the supply chain to end consumers. PTD is the rate at which manufacturers or importers sell to distributors. It includes production costs, taxes, and distributor margins. MRP is the maximum price that can be charged to consumers, encompassing all taxes and profit margins throughout the supply chain. Weekly reporting of price adjustments Edible oil associations were advised to ensure that their members implement immediate price adjustments and share updated brand-wise MRP data with the department on a weekly basis. The DFPD also provided a standardised reporting format for revised MRP and PTD submissions. 'This decision follows a detailed review of the sharp rise in edible oil prices after last year's duty hike. The increase led to significant inflationary pressure on consumers, contributing to rising food inflation,' the government statement said. 'This adjustment (tax reduction) aims to address the escalating edible oil prices resulting from the September 2024 duty hike and concurrent increases in international market prices,' said the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution. Explaining the rationale behind the revised import duty structure, the ministry stated: 'A 19.25 per cent duty differential between crude and refined oils helps encourage domestic refining capacity utilisation and reduce imports of refined oils.' Boost to domestic refining capacity This move is expected to lower the landed cost of crude edible oils, reduce retail prices, and provide relief to consumers. It also aims to promote the utilisation of domestic refining capacity, thereby curbing the import of refined oils. 'The timely transmission of this benefit through the supply chain is imperative to ensure that consumers experience a corresponding decrease in retail prices,' the ministry added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
7 hours ago
- Business Standard
IIGC launches Code of Standards to govern influencer-brand deals
The Indian Influencer Governing Council (IIGC) on Monday announced the launch of the Code of Standards for Brands, a framework aimed at promoting ethical, transparent, and responsible brand partnerships in the fast-evolving influencer marketing ecosystem. IIGC, an initiative led by industry stakeholders to support government efforts, foster collaboration, and promote responsible practices in influencer marketing, stated in its release that the code will address critical areas such as mandatory transparency and disclosure of paid partnerships, gifted products, and affiliate links. It will also promote content authenticity by encouraging influencers to retain their genuine voice while discouraging scripted, misleading, or manipulative messaging. 'Brand–influencer partnerships are incredibly powerful, but also vulnerable to reputational risks,' said Sahil Chopra, chairman, IIGC, in a statement. 'Today, almost 95 per cent of brand–influencer work happens without a formal contract, leading to unnecessary disputes and a breakdown of trust. The Code of Standards for Brands makes the ecosystem more accountable and sustainable. With the addition of the IIGC Taskforce, we are giving the industry a much-needed safety net to operate with greater transparency and fairness.' As per the recently launched code, brands will be required to ensure full disclosure when using virtual influencers, and deceptive use of CGI (computer-generated imagery) or deepfakes will be banned. Data privacy is another core pillar, with the code enforcing strict protocols for data collection, targeting, and consumer consent, in line with the Consumer Protection Act and other applicable privacy laws. The code also introduces guidance around brand–influencer contractual frameworks. It will provide templates and best practices to ensure that all partnerships are governed by clear, fair, and transparent contracts, the release said. Simultaneously, the operational launch of the IIGC Taskforce—which offers ongoing governance and support to brands through real-time digital listening, sentiment analysis, and crisis mitigation—will help brands manage online reputation risks more proactively, the release stated. 'Its mediation service offers a neutral and confidential space to resolve disputes related to content, reputational concerns, and contractual issues, protecting relationships and preserving industry trust. When required, the taskforce also facilitates access to verified legal professionals to guide brands through complex regulatory landscapes or contractual challenges,' the release added.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC refuses relief to man given 182-yr term for defrauding 344 homebuyers
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a 75-year-old former director of a property firm facing an extraordinary 182-year prison sentence for defrauding 344 homebuyers, upholding the authority of a consumer forum to impose multiple consecutive jail terms in a landmark case. In a verdict delivered on May 30 and released Monday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea of Rajender Mittal, a director of Tirupati Builders Pvt Ltd, who had sought modification of the sentence imposed by a district consumer court. The court in 1995 had convicted Mittal for failing to refund booking amounts collected from buyers promised plots in a proposed residential colony—Tirupati Township—on Delhi's Baghpat Road. The Tirupati Township Plot Holders Association, representing over 300 homebuyers, accused Mittal and his co-director Rakesh Kumar Sharma of collecting ₹90.79 lakh for plots that were never delivered. On March 13, 1995, the district consumer forum ruled in the buyers' favour, directing the directors to refund the money with 18% annual interest, along with ₹20,000 in compensation and ₹500 in litigation costs to each complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the order in July 2011. The two directors, however, failed to comply with the refund order. In February 1998, the consumer forum invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows imprisonment for up to three years for non-compliance with forum orders. The forum sentenced Mittal and Sharma to one year of simple imprisonment in 20 complaints and six months in each of the remaining 324. Crucially, it directed the sentences to run consecutively—resulting in a combined term of 182 years. The sentence was suspended for three months to give the duo a final chance to comply. In 2003, the Delhi state consumer commission upheld this decision. Praying for his immediate release from prison, Mittal on December 1, 2020, challenged the sentence in the high court, arguing that since all complaints stemmed from the same transaction and were decided through a common order, the punishments should run concurrently. That would have limited his prison term to one year. He called the forum's decision 'excessive, arbitrary and illegal,' citing that the forum could not go beyond the maximum three-year sentence outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Mittal also pointed to his incarceration in a separate criminal case. Arrested in 2016 after being declared a proclaimed offender, he was convicted in 2019 for cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust. He was sentenced to five years for cheating, three years for breach of trust, and two years for conspiracy, with sentences running concurrently. He claimed to have already served over seven years in that case. But the high court was unmoved. Representing the Centre, advocate Udit Vaghela argued that the 1995 consumer forum order had attained finality after the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling and could not be reopened. Justice Krishna rejected Mittal's petition, ruling that the sentences were lawful and enforceable under Section 27, and since they were imposed for default of compliance rather than for criminal wrongdoing, they could not be made to run concurrently. She underlined that the punishment was not punitive, but a civil measure aimed at compelling compliance with the forum's directions. 'These sentences being for default of fine, cannot under the law be directed to run concurrently as it is not punitive in nature but only intended to ensure compliance,' held the judge, emphasising that no direction as sought by the petitioner could be issued under such circumstances. However, the court left a narrow window open: Mittal, the court said, was free to approach the district forum afresh on grounds of financial incapacity and seek a modified sentence there.
