Consumer rights activists have expressed strong dissatisfaction over the government’s market inspections, which seem to focus solely on collecting fines. During the last fiscal year, the Department of Commerce inspected over four thousand businesses and found that more than 97 percent violated regulations. Former Director Kumar Dahal emphasized the need to shift from enforcement through inspections toward automated market management systems for effective reform. 12 Shrawan, Kathmandu.
Consumers commonly face issues such as inflation, poor quality products, and price discrepancies across shops. Despite ongoing arbitrary practices by traders, consumers are forced to purchase expensive and substandard goods. Although the government claims to have deployed daily market monitoring teams and collected fines amounting to millions of rupees, there are no signs of tangible improvement in market conditions. While the Department of Commerce, Supplies and Consumer Protection and the Department of Food Technology and Quality Control assert their roles in inspection and price control, the continued struggles faced by consumers indicate these agencies have largely failed in fulfilling their responsibilities.
According to data published by the Department of Commerce, during the fiscal year 2082/83, 965 inspection teams monitored 4,481 businesses, with only 115 complying fully with regulations. Authorities took action against 537 firms, collecting fines totaling NPR 26,123,300. Consumer rights activists accuse the Department of Commerce of prioritizing the collection of fines over genuine market improvements.
Former Director Kumar Dahal acknowledged that the inspection system is outdated and often symbolic, noting that revenue generation is a secondary concern compared to the essential objective of cleaning up market operations. Vishnu Timalsina, General Secretary of the Consumer Interest Protection Forum, stated that the Department of Commerce and the government are under traders’ influence, which undermines inspection effectiveness. He further cited manpower shortages and jurisdictional confusion as key reasons for ineffective monitoring.
