Unilever Red Label Tea Scam: Authorities failing to launch investigation and take action

MAKWANPUR, September 23: It has already been three weeks since a large quantity of expired tea leaves was seized from a tea factory in Hetauda but the authority concerned has failed to take any concrete action against it. A large quantity (32 tons) of expired tea leaves was seized from Unilever Tea Factory based in Hetauda Sub-metropolitan City-3 in Makwanpur district, on August 31. Acting on a tip-off, a joint team of local administration, Office of Food Technology and Quality Control and Forum for Protection of Consumer Rights Protection Forum had monitored the tea leaves processing center on the factory premises. The company - Unilever Nepal - was found relabeling, repackaging and selling ‘expired tea’ in the market. The local administration sealed the plant for further investigations later on September 3. However, no solid action has been taken against the multi-national company yet.  The assistant chief district officer (CDO) is entrusted as an inspection officer in the district. In case no inspection officer is named, the Consumer Protection Act, 2018 gets replaced with the Food Act. As per the Food Act, a maximum of Rs 10,000 can be charged as a fine against the perpetrator. However, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2018, an inspection officer can take on-site action and can charge a fine amount up to 300,000 if the company is found guilty. In the case of the Unilever ‘Red Level’ Tea Scam, the assistant CDO of Makwanpur district was already transferred and the responsibility was to be handed over to Babu Ram Aryal as per the law. But, CDO Bharat Mani Pandey exerted pressure to take action as per the Food Act stating that the Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Protection entrusted outgoing  CDO Sharma with the authority to take necessary action.   The Department of Food Supplies and Consumer Protection, which names inspection officers in all 77 districts, had appointed the assistant CDO as the investigation officer in Makwanpur district.  “The department appoints the assistant CDO as the inspection officer in the district and that responsibility can not be transferred to anyone else,” said Shiva Raj Sedai, spokesperson for the department. CDO Pandey,  however, sent a letter to the department to make it clear who is to be given the authority, former assistant CDO Sharma or his successor Aryal. Unilever has been making its utmost efforts to prevent the local administration from taking action against it. Instead of conducting a field investigation, the Food Technology and Quality Control Office (FTQCO), Hetauda, sent the samples of seized tea leaves to Kathmandu for tests. When asked about the delay in sample testing, Upendra Raya, Director General of the department said that the testing is being carried out as per the capacity. Even after three weeks after the confiscation of expired tea leaves, the authority concerned has failed to take any legal action against the multi-national company.  Investigation is underway: FTQCO, Hetauda According to the investigation team, the tea leaves confiscated from the Unilever Tea Plant were to be consumed by June 2020. However, the company was found relabeling, repackaging and selling expired tea in the market.  Then, the FTQCO, Hetauda, appointed an investigation officer and the investigation is underway, according to the office. The officials of the company have been summoned within seven days to record their statements. The investigation team will launch an investigation as per the Food Act and will submit a report to the District Administration Office (DAO). The CDO will then file a case, said chief of the FTQCO, Hetauda Somkant Rijal. He also declined to speak publicly about the issue as the investigation process ‘takes time'. He said he had no information about Unilever and urged journalists not to publish any news or information immediately. CDO has nothing to do with this case: CDO Pandey CDO Pandey said that the investigation is underway after expired tea leaves were seized from the factory. “Once the investigation officer submits his report, either the district court or I will pass the verdict on the case,” he said.  He claimed that he did not have any role behind the delayed investigation. “Several news reports have blamed me for the delay, which is true.” “I have not pressurized anyone in this regard. It is the sole responsibility of the investigation officer to conduct the investigation and file case through the district attorney." Click the following links to read the complete news series:  First Second Third Fourth