Distributor of controversial socks given 60 days to show cause on closure notice, says local committee chairman

 

ISKANDAR PUTERI: The owner of Xin Jian Chang Sdn Bhd, the distribution company embroiled in the socks controversy, has been given 60 days to explain to the local authorities why the factory should not be closed down for breaching its business licence terms.

State Housing and Local Government Committee chairman Datuk Mohd Jafni Md Shukor (pix) said investigations showed that the company had violated the terms of the business licence granted by the Batu Pahat Municipal Council for a shoe storage and distribution facility.

"The factory is supposed to engage only in the storage and distribution of shoes but was involved in the packaging of socks and gloves, which was not included in its licence application. This is why a notice of licence cancellation and premises closure was issued to them," he told reporters at his office in the Dato’ Abdul Rahman Andak Building here on Thursday (March 21).

He said the company owner needs to present the corrective actions they need to take to convince the local authority to maintain their licence.

"Once the licence is revoked, it will be difficult for the company as they will be blacklisted, making it challenging for them to reapply unless they set up a new company," he said.

He said this when asked to comment on the notice of business licence cancellation and business operation closure issued to the factory over its distribution of the controversial socks to KK Super Mart convenience stores.

Last Tuesday, police seized five pairs of the controversial socks, which the convenience chain store had returned during an inspection at the factory responsible for packaging and distributing the socks to the chain's outlet in Bandar Sunway, Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

He said the inspection found that the factory had imported 16 packages containing 18,800 pairs of socks, but no more of the controversial socks were found except for those already seized.

Investigations are being conducted under Section 298A and Section 505(b) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998. – Bernama