Five businesses have been fined a total of Rs. 140,000 for selling and distributing baby and adult diapers without the importer details required by law, the Daily Mirror reported.

The prosecutions followed complaints to the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) from consumers who said some diapers deteriorated and tore during use. The CAA investigated and raided the businesses.

The charge was not the defect itself. Legal action was filed for displaying for sale and distributing diapers without the importer’s name, address, telephone number or website details, in breach of Direction No. 85.

The cases were taken up before Colombo Chief Magistrate’s Court No. 05 on 16 September, where all five defendants pleaded guilty.

The stock destroyed

The court ordered the destruction of the entire stock produced as case productions: 81 packs of baby diapers and baby pants in various sizes, and six packs of adult protective diapers.

The quantity is small — 87 packs across five businesses — which puts the case at the retail end of the supply chain rather than at the importer.

What the labelling rule is for

The gap between the complaint and the charge explains the rule. Consumers reported a product failing in use; the CAA prosecuted the absence of importer details. Without a named importer on the pack, there is no party to trace the defective stock back to, no way to identify the consignment, and no one to hold responsible for quality beyond the shop that sold it. The labelling requirement is what makes a product-quality complaint actionable at all.

The CAA urged consumers to check importer details and other required labelling when buying baby or adult diapers, and to keep the packaging and the purchase receipt where possible when making a complaint. Complaints can be made on the CAA’s 1977 hotline.

Not reported

The Daily Mirror does not name the five businesses, give the fine imposed on each, or say where they trade. It does not identify the brand of diaper, the country of origin, or the importer — the party the labelling rule exists to identify, and who has not been prosecuted.

It does not say how many consumer complaints were received, whether the defective stock was tested, or whether any wider recall has been ordered. Nor does it say whether the same product remains on sale elsewhere.

No other verified newsroom had carried the case at the time of writing.