CCPA notices to IndiaMART, Justdial on explosives
The Central Consumer Protection Authority has acted against seven ecommerce platforms over listings for explosive chemicals. For IndiaMART and Justdial the step was a notice, not a penalty.
- The CCPA issued notices to IndiaMART and Justdial. Neither has been penalised, and the final hearing is listed for 23 October.
- Penalties of Rs 30 lakh in all went to Dial4Trade and ExportersIndia, not to IndiaMART or Justdial.
- The NCDRC treated the listings as misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. No section numbers are given.
- Inc42 does not raise section 79 of the IT Act or the intermediary rules, so safe harbour is untested here rather than rejected.
Inc42 reported on 20 October that the Central Consumer Protection Authority has taken regulatory action against seven ecommerce platforms over listings for ammonium nitrate, gun powder, picric acid and pentaerythritol tetranitrate. The headline says IndiaMART and Justdial were booked. The body never uses that word, and the distinction matters.
What the CCPA actually did to those two was issue notices. Its Director General of Investigation examined the listings and shared reports with the companies. IndiaMART replied, then went to the Delhi High Court to challenge the show-cause notice. Justdial sought adjournments and has not responded to the investigation. Neither has been penalised. The final hearing is listed for 23 October.
The penalties landed elsewhere. Dial4Trade was fined Rs 10 lakh over ammonium nitrate, and ExportersIndia Rs 10 lakh in each of two cases, Rs 30 lakh in all. The NCDRC dismissed Dial4Trade’s appeal on 9 October, holding the listings were misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Inc42 gives no section numbers. The licensing requirement under the Explosives Act 1884 runs alongside. Delistings came to 3,940 sellers and listing entries, with IndiaMART accounting for 3,092 and Justdial 206.
On when a platform answers for a seller’s listing, the regulator’s stated expectation is specific. Sellers should display valid PESO licences, and platforms should verify a buyer’s identity and licence status before a sale completes. That is a duty to check before the transaction, not only to remove after a complaint. Inc42 does not raise section 79 of the IT Act or the intermediary rules anywhere, so safe harbour is untested in this action rather than rejected.
Read it against the Gurugram FIR over an alleged pesticide sale. That was a criminal forum, one death, untested allegations. This is a consumer regulator running investigations, levying penalties and defending them on appeal, with a judicial challenge already live. If you sell anything licence-bound, licence display and buyer verification are now a regulator expectation, and your marketplace policy disputes route can end at the NCDRC.
Zane’s analysis draws on original reporting by Inc42. Read the original report.