Penalties totalling $25,000 and costs of $1,500 have been ordered against MNB Variety Imports Pty Ltd, an importer and wholesaler, for supplying swimming aids and sunglasses which failed to comply with the relevant mandatory consumer product safety standards.
MNB had previously pleaded guilty to committing both offences.
The swimming aids were not marked in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1900-1991: Childrens Flotation Toys and Swimming Aids. Amongst other things, the product and packaging failed to contain the words, "WARNING USE ONLY UNDER COMPETENT SUPERVISION", as required by the standard.
The 'Sundance' style of sunglasses supplied by MNB failed to comply with the field of view, refractive power, density matching and labelling provisions of the Australian Standard AS 1067.1-1990: Sunglasses and Fashion Spectacles.
In determining penalty Justice Emmett took into account, amongst other things, the fact that MNB had committed earlier similar product safety offences under the Trade Practices Act and the Fair Trading Act.
He noted that MNB could not commit similar offences without an increase in penalty. He considered that at the time of committing the offences, MNB must have been aware of the existence of the standards.
He considered that the offences were not due to MNB ignoring the provisions of the standards, but were due to the lax control taken by Mr Bhojwani, a director of MNB, in ensuring compliance with the relevant standards.
Justice Emmett also considered the significance of the failure to comply with the relevant standards. He noted that the absence of the warning on the swim aids produced the risk of wrong use of a product intended for small children.
He also noted that the instances of non-compliance of the sunglasses were significant because they went to the issue of the personal safety of users.
Justice Emmett noted that it was important for the business community to be aware of its responsibility for complying with the relevant mandatory standards. He stated that the fine imposed should be one that cannot simply be regarded as a business expense, and stated that the penalty 'must hurt to some extent'.
Section 65C(1)(a) of the Trade Practices Act provides that a corporation shall not supply goods that are intended to be used, or are of a kind likely to be used, by a consumer if the goods are of a kind in respect of which there is a prescribed consumer product safety standard and which do not comply with that standard.
MNB had previously pleaded guilty to committing both offences.
The swimming aids were not marked in accordance with the Australian Standard AS 1900-1991: Childrens Flotation Toys and Swimming Aids. Amongst other things, the product and packaging failed to contain the words, "WARNING USE ONLY UNDER COMPETENT SUPERVISION", as required by the standard.
The 'Sundance' style of sunglasses supplied by MNB failed to comply with the field of view, refractive power, density matching and labelling provisions of the Australian Standard AS 1067.1-1990: Sunglasses and Fashion Spectacles.
In determining penalty Justice Emmett took into account, amongst other things, the fact that MNB had committed earlier similar product safety offences under the Trade Practices Act and the Fair Trading Act.
He noted that MNB could not commit similar offences without an increase in penalty. He considered that at the time of committing the offences, MNB must have been aware of the existence of the standards.
He considered that the offences were not due to MNB ignoring the provisions of the standards, but were due to the lax control taken by Mr Bhojwani, a director of MNB, in ensuring compliance with the relevant standards.
Justice Emmett also considered the significance of the failure to comply with the relevant standards. He noted that the absence of the warning on the swim aids produced the risk of wrong use of a product intended for small children.
He also noted that the instances of non-compliance of the sunglasses were significant because they went to the issue of the personal safety of users.
Justice Emmett noted that it was important for the business community to be aware of its responsibility for complying with the relevant mandatory standards. He stated that the fine imposed should be one that cannot simply be regarded as a business expense, and stated that the penalty 'must hurt to some extent'.
Section 65C(1)(a) of the Trade Practices Act provides that a corporation shall not supply goods that are intended to be used, or are of a kind likely to be used, by a consumer if the goods are of a kind in respect of which there is a prescribed consumer product safety standard and which do not comply with that standard.