The MRTPC has backed away from taking action against gold jewellers
It might seem like an unusual decision by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC). Earlier this year they let off a jeweller who had been accused of falsely stating and selling lower purity gold than promised. The case, which had dragged on for almost 11 years, was finally dismissed on a technicality.
Everyone knows that anyone who buys gold in this country is likely to be taken for a ride. There are enough surveys to prove that customers are taken for a ride a lot of the time. Recently, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) conducted an investigation which showed that almost 100 per cent of the samples that it had taken were of a lower purity than promised.
The BIS bought 15 pieces of jewellery all of which were supposed to be made with 22 carat gold. The jewellery was bought from a selection of small and large jewellery showrooms in seven major Delhi markets. The BIS bought a selection of bangles, rings, chains, earrings. These were tested at a BIS approved assaying centre at the Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation. The results, to say the least, were astonishing.
Out of 15 samples tested, only three samples were found to be of the claimed purity. Twelve out of 15 samples were of a much lower purity than the claimed 22 carats. Thus, 80 per cent of the samples purchased from Delhi jewellers were of a lower purity than charged for.
On an average, the purity fell short by 15.5 per cent. Out of the 12 samples as many as seven were short by more than 15 per cent. In other words, six samples which were purchased as 22 carat gold were actually of 18 carats, one sample each was of 13.5 carat, 19 carat, 21 carat and 17 carat, and the other two were also below the claimed 22 carats.
The question that arose before the MRTP Commission was whether a jeweller who sells lower caratage gold to what is claimed, has violated the MRTP Act. The argument before the MRTPC was that the jeweller had violated Section 36A of the act. The case, Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry (Director General (I&R) v. Ambica Jewellers), had been launched against a jeweller in Bhopal.
Astonishingly, the jewellery firm took the plea, before the Commission, that it should not be prosecuted because the malpractices it had been accused of were prevalent throughout the industry.
This, however, was closed on August 2 on a technical ground. It was brought to the notice of the Commission that this practice was prevalent throughout the country. Therefore, it was argued that the Commission take up the general issue in an appropriate case rather than punishing one single jeweller.
That could take quite a long time. How should a customer who is buying gold jewellery protect him or herself in the meanwhile? One answer is to only buy hallmarked jewellery. Hallmarking is a foolproof method to accurately determine and record the exact gold content in jewellery.
However, this isn
