(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE MUMBAI ZONAL OFFICE 48, VITHALDAS THACKERSEY MARG, NEW MARINE LINES, CH URCHGATE, MUMBAI – 400 020 MINUTES OF THE 30 TH MEETING OF REGIONAL SUB-COMMITTEE ON QUALITY COMPLAINTS (RSCQC) HELD ON 16 TH JANUARY, 2013)
Mr. H.P. Srivastava (Head – HR & Commercial), Mr. K.P. Mishra (Manager – Exim), and Mr. Hemendra Killawala (Manager – International Marketing), representing M/s. Oriental Rubber Industries Limited, Pune, appeared before the Committee. They made the following submissions:
1. They did not have any contract or contractual obligation with M/s. Fakoor International Tehran Engineering Company (FITCO), Iran and the goods in question have been supplied by them to M/s. BFT Trading FZCO, Dubai.
2. They agreed that initially FITCO had placed an order for conveyor belts vide Purchase Order No. 89/34629 dated 13.11.2010 against Letter of Credit for Euro 210061/-.
3. Goods against the FITCO order were ready for dis patch in March 2010 and they were following up with FITCO to initiate pre-shipment in spection and subsequent shipment of goods. Communication in this regard was sent to M/ s. FITCO vide e-mail dated 07.03.2011.
4. On 15.03.2011, FITCO informed them through e-mail that due to sanctions on Iran, their LC could not be honoured and were not picking up the shipment.
5. Thereafter, for a period of nearly 2 months they followed up with FITCO to effect shipment but they did not respond. An e-mail dated 17.03.2011 was sent to them in this regard.
6. In April 2011, they were approached by BFT Trading FZCO, Dubai who told that they would be opening a Letter of Credit for purchasing the goods which were earlier ordered by FITCO. BFT opened Letter of Credit through Habib Bank (No. SZR 3893 dated 05.05.2011) and the terms of Contract were FOB – Mu mbai basis.
7. As per terms of purchase, the pre shipment inspection was required to be carried out by Inspection Agency, Industrial & Engineering Inspection Co. of Iran (IEI), which was appointed by BFT. The inspection was conducted by IEI, Iran on 16.05.2011.
8. IEI, Iran, issued certificate dated 20.06.2011 certifying that the quality, quantity and packing of the goods loaded are strictly complying with specifications of the goods indicated in the relative proforma invoice and the terms of the Letter of Credit.
9. The goods were shipped to BFT Trading on FOB basis on 31.05.2011 through nominated agent/shipping line of BFT Trading and accordingly they received a Bill of Lading which stated the Port of discharge as JEBEL ALI, UAE.
10. On 10.10.2011, i.e. after 5 months from shipment date, they received few pictures informing that belts had been damaged.
11. Though not obliged to respond to FITCO as they did not have a contract with them, they responded out of good faith and informed FITCO on 2 0.11.2011 that the goods were shipped on FOB basis and there was no damage to the belts when the said belts were loaded in the container in the presence of the Inspection Agency IEI. The belts were in proper condition when dispatched from India, as confirmed by IEI in their certificate dated 20.6.2011 and as such, that damage to belts cannot be attributed to them.
12. On 19 th December 2011 (nearly 7 months after the dispatch of goods) they received complaint from FITCO about properties of belts. Th ough not bound by any contractual obligation to respond to FITCO, they conducted test s on the samples of belts retained at their laboratory which is accredited to National Ac creditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) and found no deviat ion in the test result obtained earlier.
13. They informed FITCO that on inspection and test s carried out by them on counter samples at their factory the goods did meet all the require d quality parameters as per the standards and no deviation was found in the result.
14. They asked FITCO to send samples of belts in wh ich quality problems were noticed so that the same could be evaluated at their laboratory but FITCO did not respond.
15. They even offered to send Technical Personnel to Iran to inspect the belts and also informed FITCO over phone that in case they were dis-satisfied with the quality of the goods, they would return the money despite having n o contractual obligation. 16. Instead of responding, FITCO has raised this is sue of quality problem for reasons best known to them. 17. They have been supplying conveyor belts to another customers in Iran who all are satisfied with the quality of belts.
The representatives of M/s. Oriental Rubber Industries concluded their submissions by stating that the goods supplied by them to BFT Trading FZCO were in good condition as is certified by the Inspection Agency, IEI and the goods could have got damaged/changed when being forwarded to FITCO by BFT Trading.
Source » http://dgftcom.nic.in/dgftmumbai/html/rscqc/RSCQC16012013.pdf