- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
SC issues notice seeking directions to mandatorily put up ‘country of origin’ of goods sold online
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea seeking directions to the Centre to formulate a law which will make it mandatory for e-commerce sites and businesses to declare the country of origin of their products.A bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian after hearing the matter issued the notice.The petition, moved in the apex court in the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea seeking directions to the Centre to formulate a law which will make it mandatory for e-commerce sites and businesses to declare the country of origin of their products.
A bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian after hearing the matter issued the notice.
The petition, moved in the apex court in the last week of June, had come on the heels of government procurement portal Government e-Marketplace (GeM) making it mandatory for sellers to declare country of origin on products, in a bid to promote self-reliant India initiative.
The plea contended that the country of origin of products should be made easily visible for the customers to make an informed decision. In June, in a bid to promote Make in India initiative, GeM enabled a provision for the sellers to indicate the percentage of local content in products.
The plea also gains significance in the backdrop of the India-China military clash at the Galwan valley in Ladakh.
The petitioner had argued that after the origin of the product has been made visible for the consumers, it will help to aid in boycotting Chinese goods. “There is a wave flowing in the country for boycotting Chinese products, by non-disclosure of the ‘Country of Origin’ on the web-portals, these giant business houses/e-commerce portals are not only playing with the patriotic feelings of the Indians but also are proving fatal in the efforts of each and every citizen of India in boycotting the Chinese products,” said the petition.
The plea contended that if the country of origin is not disclosed then it may become a blockade to promote local manufacturing. The petitioner has sought directions to amend the Section 2 (9) of the Consumer Protection Act, with an addition that it should also include the right of the consumer to know the origin of the product. The plea argued that the consumers are often kept in the dark on the huge imports from China, by not disclosing the country of origin, which are largely junk.