Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 64

CHAPTER -VII

MARKETING OF TEA

6.1 ^4ARKETING OF TEA IN WORLD


In an agro based industry like tea, its economic operations
depend on its marketing strategies. During the last 30
years, the international trade in tea has obtained new
heights with emergence of many new tea producing nations
like kenya, Malawi, Argentina & Turkey. In 1950's tea used
to be one of the most important foreign exchange earner for
India with about 19 percent of the total foreign exchange
earnings coming from tea, and its competitors were far
behind. Srilanka occupied the second position in the world
trade contributing only one half of India's share. Togi ther
the two countries accounted for two third of the global tea
output. The remainder was shared in small quantities by
about 20 countries. During mid-eighties, India failed to
satisfy the demand for Indian tea in world market and small
non traditional tea growing countries like kenya and some
other African countries took the opportunity to fill in the
gap with their CTC tea and captured some of the traditional
markets. Another advantage, which affected India's share in
the international market has been, constant production
throughout the year by these small countries and regular
and consistent supply of tea in the world market. In this
process they have assumed a place in the world market in
terms of supply at lower cost. The entry of China in a big
way in the international market in recent years has been a
development with significant implications for the Indian tea

IP7
Industry.
India despite its size is relatively minor player
in the world export market in recent times. It at present
accounts for less than one half of the one percent of the
total global export trade. Quite apart from developments in
other tea producing and consuming countries, which may had a
bearing on the pattern of tea disposal in India, several
other factors are relevant in decreasing share of Indian tea
trade. Given the fact that India's tea Exports have
fluctuated around a pivot of 200 m kgs in the last thirty
years, the entire increase in production has been absorbed
in the domestic market. The growth rate of domestic
consumption of tea in this country has out-strips the rate
of production of tea. This phenomenon has been observed in
the last 10 years. The demand for tea increases along side
the increase in national income but at a rate higher than
the growth of production, which reflects that the falling
share of Indian tea in world export is mainly due to steady
increase in the domestic demand. Table 6.1 & 6.2 shows the
Total world production & Exports of tea during the last 10
years,i.e (1985-86 to 1994-95).The statistical figures show
that world production has increased by 111.29 percent and
exports have increased by marginally 7.08 percent during
the last 10 years, which reflect that production has
increased at more rapid pace than exports.

R8
Table 6.1

WORLD TEA PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS DURING 1985-86 To 1994-95

YEAR Total Production Total Exports % share of


of Tea in World of Tea Export of
( in million KG.) ( in million KGS) Total Prod.

1985-86 2289,969 954,172 41.66


1986-87 2276,133 973,488 42.76
1987-88 2339,610 974,037 41.63
1988-89 2476,053 1037,443 41.89
1989-90 2439,310 1125,736 46.14
1990-91 2568,500 1135,434 44.20
1991-92 2604,901 1078,883 41.41
1992-93 2479,630 1017,534 41.03
1993-94 2598,587 1153,130 44.37
1994-95* 2548,676 1021,804 40.09
INCREASE OF 111.29 7.08
DECREASE
OVER 1985-86 (1.07) (.68)
Source - Tea Board Statistcs 1992-93

Figures in Parenthesis represent annual increase

iqq
Tible 6.2

PRODUCTION AND EXPORT OF TEA


FROK MAJOR TEA PRODUCINB NATIONS

1985 - 86 1994- 95 X increase


COUNTRY PRODUCTION EXPORTS PRODUCTION EXPORTS Production Export

India 656,162 214,935 743,780 146,462 13.35 (31.85)


§ 28.70 22.53 29.56 14.42

Sriianka 215,305 197,580 243,56J 224,235 J3.J2 13.49


« 9.40 20.71 9.68 22.08

China 432,337 136,864 588,468 179,679 36.11 31.28


4 18.88 14.34 23.38 17.70

Indonesii1 132,347 90,121 129,794 84,916 (1.92) (5.77)


4 5.77 9.44 5.15 8.40

Kenya 147,094 126,086 209,422 184,211 42.37 46.09


4 6.42 13.21 8.32 18.19

Uganda 5,784 1,254 13,461 10,971 132.72 774.88


« .25 .13 .53 1.08

Halatfi 39,954 37,147 35,140 31,672 (12.04) (14.73)


« 1.74 3.89 1.39 3.14

Turkey 137,116 859 134,350 5,200 (2.01) (5.05)


i 5.98 .09 5.34 .51

Bangladesh 43,285 30,306 51,642 23,640 19.30 (21.99)


* 1.89 3.17 2.05 2.32

Japan 95,500 1,805 86,303 345 (9.63) 80.88


4 4.17 .IB 3.43 .03

USSR/CI'si 152,100 - 18,000 - (88.16) -


4 6.64 .71

Others 232,803 117,003 261,989 123,818 12.53 5.82


4 10.16 12,26 10.41 12.19

Total 2289,787 953,960 2515,912 1015,149

Source ;- Tea Board Statistics 1991-92 and 1993-94.


Tea Company Report 1994.
Note !- • denotes percentage of total Production and Exports.
Figures in pirenthesis represents decrease.

2.00
Table 6.2 shows that share of India in tea exports has
declined during the last 10 years, where as Srilanka, China
& Kenya have gained in international tea exports. In 1985
India's share in the exports of tea was 22.53 percent which
stands at 14.42 percent in 1994, thus registering a fall of
31.85 percent during the last 10 years. Main reason for
fall of India's share in the international market has been
due to loss of Russian market and increased domestic
consumption. USSR & C.I's countries which were importing
around 80 percent of their tea from India in 1985 have just
41 percent share of Indian tea in 1994. Consequent on the
disintegration of the Soviet union and the absence of a
trade protocol between India & Russia, there was a 50
million kgs drop in tea export to Russia, however its share
of exports has increased to General Currency Areas (GCA)
particularly United kingdom, which made it possible to
compensate the 50 million kgs short fall by around 20
million kgs. However fact remained that the USSR was very
important market that need to be serviced side by side with
General Currency Areas country. Table 6.3 shows the position
of main importing countries of tea from India. It is evident
from the table that the major loss to India in the
international market has been reported from USSR, Arab
Republic and Iran, where its share has gone down by
70.68 percent . Exports can arise only from a strong and
growing domestic market with a capacity to generate an
adequate surplus. Viewed from this angle. Table 6.4

201
TABLE 6.3
EXPORTS OF INDIAN TEA IN 1965 md 1994

1995 1994
Country Qty % Valu? in Value Qty S Value in Value
•kg share thousand Per KQ nkg share thousand Per Kg

United Kinqdo* 25,276 11.81 6,52,055 25.70 28,013 18.59 131,02,31 46.77

USSR 96,598 45.13 30,57,086 Ti -rr 37,292 24.75 268,94,28 72.11

Afganistan 3,631 1.72 1,33,902 36.87 412 .27 2,70,31 65.61

Arab Republic 17,321 8.09 4,88,152 28.18 4,233 2.82 23,90,82 56.48

Poland 7,408 3.46 i|4tj)U/T 19,705 13.07 96,01,20 48.72

Iran 18,939 8.85 7.89,563 41.68 3,592 2.38 38,03,23 105.88

Japan 999 .47 46,844 46.89 2,640 1.75 28,91,37 109.52

Arte Pica 1,736 .81 72,9)2 41.93 6,633 4.40 37,20,88 56.09

Semany 3,061 1.43 1,36,754 44.67 6,346 4.21 71,70,79 112.99

Ireland 2,416 1.12 60,7^5 25.15 2,452 1.63 12,42,53 50.67

Others 36,636 17.11 12,71,689 34.71 39,373 26.13 2,78,26,28 70.67

- 2,14,021 100 65,52,996 39.00 1,50,691 100 9,89,14,00 79.55

Source :- Tea Coapany Report i99lf


Others countries include Ireland, Netherland, Rest of Europe, Iraq, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Persian 6ulf, UAE, Jordan, Rest of Middle East, Pakistan,
Sudan, Tunisia, Canada, Australia, NetKzealand.

202
~V{Q>Lt 6-^

PRODUCTION, DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION AND EXPORTS


IN INDIA DURING 1985-86 TO 1994

Year Production Domestic Retention Export


(In tonnes) (In tonnes) (In tonnes)

1985-86 656,162 441,225 214,937


1986-87 620,803 416,571 204,292
1987-88 665,251 462,498 202,753
1988-89 700,014 498,267 201,747
1989-90 688,105 475,443 212,662

1990-91 720,338 510,314 210,024


1991-92 754,192 551,274 202,918
1992-93 732,322 557,360 174,962
1993-94 758,063 582,745 175,318
1994-95 743,780 592,318 146,462
Increase/ 13.35 34.24 (31.85)
Decrease 1.26* 2.98* (3.48)
over 1985

Source Tea Company Report 1994.


Tea Board statistic 1991-92 and 1993-94
Note * denotes annual increase.
Figures in parenthesis represents decrease,

103
shows the India's production, domestic consumption and
exports during the period 1985-94. Table shows that though
India's production and domestic consumption have increased
by 13.35 and 34.24 percent but exports are showing a
declining trend and decreased by 31.85 percent. Fig 6.1
shows the trend in India's production,domestic consumption
and Exports, which shows that though production and domestic
consumption are rising but exports are showing decling
trend. According to one estimate 80 percent of all Indian
house hold drink tea, the average per capita consumption is
only .630 kgs per year, which is probably one of the lowest
among the tea drinking countries. Pakistan has a consumption
of .93 kg per capita, while Egypt touches a figure of 1.33
kgs. Turkey is among the highest consumer nations at 2.49
kgs.
An estimate shows that export earnings of the
traditional tea growing countries have fluctuated in
consonance with the cyclical movement in international
prices, but this has not been true in case of India, the
prices of Indian tea is higher than that of its rivals and
domestic prices. Average export price in 1985 was 41
percent more than domestic price (Rs. 45.73 and Rs. 32.24)
where as difference was 62 percent in 1994 (Rs.65.64 and
Rs. 40.51).
The above analysis show that in order to be
Internationally Competitive Indian tea Industry has to
over come certain bottlenecks, like developing large scale

2o^
"P^

z: O
J
C Q-
o
13
Q CO O
O z:
O X
o I

'^'f
a>
^
\>-)t-
a>
V: w^
m::mm S
T—

• • { •
o> '^^f
T— C?^
CM OJ
>±m O)
a>
m 4--
• ^ :

1 — ].»

i:ii:ii: -T
T~"
a>
a> c^
i

Ci-
.

x\f
o a:
.# a> :>-
•*t :•• ::^T'
a> c
T~- (y Q —
:;:+ WmiS CO
CD
T—
CO
>-
c
'w'
C) 2
• -
'w'

:*:
w
a> CC H-
T— Q .r
h- H- LL
.


• .

• : :
.

- •
- \ ,

. • ^ :
• .

'^::
CO
CF>
C'
I ; - : : • • : ; : • • •
<D o
:-^-
CO

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o:
o
o
o
o
Ioo CO

CO h- CO lo -tf- CO c\j
o ~

i:fci£>d>C3•f^Di-:d;i^it^i>^v>:^::^i::•iNe>^
domestic market which will back its march in overseas
market. Promoting new brands of tea in international
markets, with marketing of value added tea should be
encouraged. India has tremendous potential to in^rove its
position in the export of value added tea . According to the
Tea Board statistics share of India's value added tea in
1990 was about 6 percent of total world tea export, where
as Srilanka share is about 15 percent value added tea
realises premium price and serious efforts should be made
to increase share in this market segments.

6.2 MARKETING OF TEA IN INDIA


The Domestic market scinario of Indian tea shows that, there
has been consistent increase in the domestic consumption of
tea in India, but sale of tea is showing a decrease. Table
6.5 shows that sale of te^ in the domestic market has been
fluctuating on year to year basis due to over all slump in
the market. It shows that there has been decrease in sale
of tea in major tea growing area's,in case of Assam, sale
fell down by 1.74 percent annually, where as in case of
West Bengal the fall in the sale volume is more rapid, where
sale fell by 2.30 percept annually. In South India too
Tamil Nadu reported a decrease in its sale during the last
10 years. One reason which can be attributed for this low
arrivals has been the leading tea brokers. There is trend in
procurring tea directly from gardens on behalf of there
buyer.As a Direct Ex- garden purchase of tea helps to reach

204.
TABLE 6.5
STATE WISE SALE OF TEA IN INDIA DURI^<G 19B5 - 86 to 1994 - 95.

State 1985-86 1986-67 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95

Assat 2,54,063 2,38,643 2,43,853 2,44,121 2,62,213 2,48,163 2,60,010 2,42,734 2,36,282 2,13,132

West

Bengal 1,21,140 1,09,677 1,18,310 1,29,709 99,299 1,08,064 1,03,953 96,723 87,887 95,9«

Tripura 1,179 1,652 2.161 2,338 2,805 2,417 2,737 3,202 2,755 2,612

Hisachal
Pardesh 187 430 422 219 445 370 521 541 514 527
Tatil

Nadu 74,094 93.559 91,288 73,094 81,965 81,343

Kerala 44,388 90,697 79,660 1,27,547 1,11,929 27.540 38,723 28,548 29,215 29,657

Kamataka 675 649 1,010 1,027 495 741

Others* - 416 462 334 423 1,349 2,384 2,275 1,408 1,805
Total
Sales 4,95,726 4,41,515 4,44,8^ 5,04,268 4,77,114 4,82,111 5,00,626 4,48,144 4,40,521 4,25,962

Source : Tea Board Statistic 1991-92, 93-94.


Tea Co«pany Report 1994.
• Others include Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Nagaland, Sikkin, Arunachal Pradesh.
For year 1986-87 to 1988-89 combined sale of South India shotm, since breakup is not available.

aoT
fresh tea faster to consumers as against a delay of atleast
a month in case the commodity goes through the normal
auction procedure. However the declining trend in offering
caused a reversal to the up swing in price as evident from
table 6.6. There has been increase in average price of tea
per kg by 90 percent with annual increase of 6.62 percent.
In comparison to national average of tea sale & averge price
of tea in India, in Himachal Pradesh also the sale of tea &
average prices of tea have gone up, with the improvement in
the quality of made tea.

The marketing of tea in internal market is


regulated through auctions. The Tea Board statistics shows
that nearly 60 to 70 per cent of the overall sale of tea is
through auctions in India in relation to total productions,
and balance is through private & Ex garden sale. The main
auction centres for North Indian Tea are Calcutta, Siliguri,
Guwahati Amritsar in India & London in International market
and for South Indian Tea, auction centres are Cochin,
Coonoor, Coimbatore at national level and London at
international level.
It is evident from table 6.7 that in case of North
Indian tea through auction their has been decrease of 18.84
percent during 1985-1994 in real terms and trend in sale is
also declining as depicted in figure 6.2 In case of South
Indian tea though their has been fall in sale of tea through
auctions by 6.05 percent in real terms (Table 6.8), but the
trend in sale is showing a upward slope (Fig - 6.3). The

loQ
TABLE i.i

STATE WISE AVERAGE PRICE OF TEA IN DIFFERENT STATES


DURING 1985-86 AND i9'?4-95.

State 1955-66 1966-67 1987-S8 1966-69 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 199#-95

AssatR 21.64 21.69 23.t5 23.01 35.53 41.25. 37.96 48.11 37.78

West
BenQil 30.77 31.56 36.05 40.19 56.63 62.74 60.97 72.03 77.77 48.81

Tripuri 14.53 17.11 21.34 19.73 29.K 49.14 28.85 31.20 43.58 33.63

Hisachal
Pardesh 15.61 16.02 16.61 19.45 39.90

South *
India Tea 20.59 16.00 20.97 19.52 27.23 27.38 30.90 31.00 40.51 39.90

Others* 15.77 18.36 30.66 40.52 33.13 31.45 39.88 35.21 44.61 34.80

Average 19.81 20.45 24.96 35.94 44.93 39.11 39.95 49.63 37.64

Source ! Tea Board Statistic 1991-92, 93-94.


Tea Coapany Report 1994.
* Average Price of South Indian Tea is taken as a break up for state is not available.
* Others include Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Nagaland, Siikis, Arunachal Pradesh.

20 q
TABLE L.l

SALE THRO'JSH AUCTIONS OF NGP.TH INDIA TEA

Year Calcutta Siliguri Suwahati Afritsar London Total Trend


Values
-T
1985-66 176780 86917 120251 165 9896 396.029 383.49
« 45.14 21.94 30.36 .04 2.52

1986-B7 142265 72002 136196 201 13655 364.319 377.92


« 39.05 19.76 37.38 .06 3.75

1967-88 132627 80583 147651 429 11904 373.194 372.35


« 35.50 21.59 39.53 .11 3.81

1988-89 139546 98981 138107 295 8826 385.460 366.78


« 36.20 25.67 35.82 .07 2.24
1

1989-90 135141 78354 151511 4?1 7399 372.856 361.21


« 36.24 21.01 40.63 .14 1.98

1990-91 129204 89976 140931 390 '5141 369.644 355.64


« 34.93 24.34 36.12 .JO :.4s-'

1991-92 13899B 91555 136644 386 5999 375.554 350.07


4 37.00 24.37 '>,.91 .13 1.59

1992-93 112912 82395 149695 406 6476 351.684 344.49


» 32.08 23.41 42.54 .11 1.86

1993-94 102342 75786 151326 579 4781 334.814 338.93


) 30.56 22.63 45.19 •i7 1.46

1994-95 -94661 83581 137715 394 5042 321.393 333.36


i 29.45 26.00 42.84 .15 1.56

Increase/ (47.05) (3.83) 14.52 112i97 (49.05) (18.84)


decrease
over 1985

Source :- Tea Board Statistic - 1991-92


Tea Coflipany Report - 1994
Notes !- » denotes percentlaoe of total sale.
Figures in parenthisss represertts percentage of total auction during the year.

210
T--.-J,-f- • : < > -

C7^
LJ • I • . •

: '.-i : • : : • . > :
. . ' . . . • . - . ( . • .

••J.-: ;•;•/•:•

CO
<^:^m:^:- 05
m
CE 1
.^y-rjr CD

O
z: O
1 c;'
Cv

z
•MBMMK
to
CO o
:^:
LO Cv .2
< CO

LU a> a-'
1— O CO 55
^ o^
Ll> a: CP
o cc
O CO
CO
o:-
CD
re O
LU 2
O :z
:;:;:;>] CO C 0 Ci^
."if-:

< O ••J .'


• • • • • • - C T ; .

CO 3 • : : 3 CO
/"1-.
<*''
< m
CO CD
r-f

si i o
Q :3 UO
j CD
o
o o o:
^.•-N

'•.'^.' o • ^ o 00
LU "s •-•• ^
co •CO
CO
CO

CE • , - . • . • . • - J

!
•. • . . , i
TABLE 6.8

SALE THROBH AUCTIONS OF SfflJTH INDIAN TEA (1985-86 TO 1994-95)

Year Cochin Coonoor Coiabatore London Total Trend values

1985-86 65743 24266 29148 157 119.314 104.28


(55.10) (20.33) (24.42) (.13)

1966-87 62477 28220 - 453 91.150 105.66


(68.54) (30.95) (.49)

1987-88 52221 27439 - 177 79.837 107.04


(65.40) (34.36) (.22)

1988-89 54094 31621 39832 - 127.547 108.42


(42.41) (26.36) (31.23)

1989-90 50618 34863 26488 - 111.969 109.8


(45.20) (31.13) (23.65)

1990-91 52334 36951 32463 - 121.748 111.18


(42.98) (30.35) (26.66)

1991-92 59606 40912 31082 34 131.634 112.56


(45.28) (31.08) (23.61) (.02)

1992-93 51361 34196 17141 190 102.888 113.94


(49.91) (33.23) (16.65) (.18)

1993-94 52028 41199 18465 364 112.056 115.32


(46.43) (36.76) (16.47) (.32)

1994-95 51034 41242 19665 153 112.094 116.70


(45.52) (36.79 (17.54) (.13;

Increase/ (22.37) 69.95 /T7 BTl (2.54) (6.05)


Decrease
over 1985

Source :- Tea Board Statistic 1991-92 & 1993-94.


T^a Coapany Report - 1994
Figures in Parenthises reoresents decrease over 1985.

iii
1

D
'r
Z
f •».

Q <
1
1

I
iO
D
o
1
• • V .

:_^ij.v.;.

GO CM
CNj
O
Z H . • • ^ : -

o:-
<D . • J . • . • . • . • . • . • . • J - .

CO
IO •::-j*-r- ;a-s:-
60
< GO
o
UJ
«.»
O •• x - : ^ ; > : o t o ^'>
z CO 00 ^
LL (C
CD
•D O

O
['•:•:•:•

CO >-
fx. 05
GJ ^
CO
CO •31^' fS '-^

O
CO ^ xxi,;- on
CC
. rx .•. .

CO

a ) • : • . O

z o
CV
^ J — ^

'«•«-«'

CO o
o
LU
WSx

ll'3
combined effect of sale through auctions as reported in
table 6.9 shows that sale through auctions has decreased
in real terms by 15.58 percent and showing a declining trend
in Fig 6.4 . In case of sale of India tea through London
auctions, both share of North and South India has gone
down by 49.05 and 2.54 percent respectively, but trend is
otherwise rising as shown in Fig 6.5 . The decreasing
trend of sale through auctions is reported to be because of
marked shift change of sale towards value added tea sale
which is getting more popular among the consumers in the
forms of tea Bags & Instant tea.

As a result of decreasing shares of sale through


auctions. The average prices of tea at auctions are showing
a increase. It is evident from table 6.10 & 6.11 that except
for prices for Indian, tea at London auction which are
falling in real terms average price of tea per kg. has been
showing a rising trend at Indian auctions.lt is evident from
table 6.10 that Average price of tea at all auction centres
in India are showing a rising trend except the London
auctions. Table 6.11 shows that in case of North Indian tea
prices rose by 85.02 percent and south Indian there has been
up swing of 51.04 percent with combined increase of 68.46
percent, but in comparsion to that prices of Indian tea at
london auctions has gone down. Fig 6.6 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9
shows the trend of average price of tea at auctions, is
showing a increasing trend. The above analysis of the
exports & marketing of Indian tea shows that, although the

2-H
Table 6.9

CQHBINED SALE OF NORTH INDIA ti SOUTH IWIA THROUGH AUCTIONS

Year Total Total Sale X share of auction Trend Values


Production Through Auction of total production Indian Auction London Auction

1985-0. i&b\t>2 515343 78.53 546.6 46.74

198i-B7 620803 455469 73.36 530.71 55.13

1987-88 665251 453031 68.09 514.82 63.52

198&-B9 700014 513007 73.28 498.93 71.91

198^90 688105 484825 70.45 483.04 80.30

1990-91 720338 491392 68.21 467.15 89.69

1991-92 754192 507218 67.25 451.26 97.06

199^93 732322 454772 62.10 435.37 105.47

1993-94 758063 446870 58.94 419.48 113.86

1994-95 743780 433487 58.28 403.59 122.25

Increase/ 13.35 (15.88)


Decrease
over 1985

Source ; Tea COMPANY REPORT 1994

Note : Figures in parenthesis represents decrease.

ilS
;
"C i
CO i "E :""" !
z
— ' • •

\ rt Qj \
1 -w u~

O
I- M ~r i
o
D
<

O
Q CM
Z
o O
O
h- CO
O
<.
<? CO
< S
LU 2
h- o h-
CO o:-

z $
CO V-

o o
< ^ CL In

Q' ^
(C CC M)
Z 0) > , .
h- r—

c CC
li_ o Q_ -
o T5
CO
r- O
£1 Z
O
LU CC
O a
_J CD- Oi
CC LI
< " •
H-
W 8
Z O
CO
Q
Z
LU
cr
H
M^^S:
2^n
TABLE 6.10

AVERAGE PRICES OF TEA AT AUCTIONS

Yejp Calcutta GuHahati Siliguri A«ritsar Cochin Coonoor Coiiit>atore London

1985-Bfc 26.60 22.85 19.92 17.49 22.74 16.11 22.93 198.5

1986-87 26.94 24.15 22.13 14.65 19.76 16.25 20.65 141.9

1987-88 28.97 24.83 23.61 14.26 22.67 19.27 ZkiaOr 122.5

198&-89 28.46 24.65 23.25 14.14 21.00 18.05 22.41 125.5

198^90 39.56 46.59 36.39 21.74 34.15 32.34 35.46 144.8

1990-91 49.07 43.10 41.37 30.38 40.09 35.97 39.28 142.3

1991-92 48.22 40.90 37.79 32.67 35.53 28.46 34.37 132.0

1992-93 43.86 40.02 37.25 28.82 34.99 30.63 32.29 116.6

1993-94 54.95 50.07 47.82 33.80 43.91 40.72 43.6 92.16

1994-95 49.56 43.46 38.19 31.63 34.39 27.79 31.12 91.6

Increase/ 86.31 90.19 91.71 80.84 51.23 72.50 35.71 (58.85)


Decrease
over 1985

Source Tea Board Statistics 1991-92.


Tea Company Report 1994.

Note Price in London Auction in Pence.


Figures in Parenthesis represents.

'2J9>
TABLE 6.11

COHBIND AVERAGE PRICE OF TEA AT NORTH AND SOUTH INDIA


AUCTIONS 1985-86 TO 1994-95

North India South India Coflbined Average London Auction


Year Average Trend Average Trend Average Trend Average Trend
Price p/fcg Price p/kg Price p/(cg Price p/fcg

1985-86 21.71 14.43 20.59 19.72 21.15 19.61 198.5 94.81

1986-87 21.96 18.51 18.88 21.87 20.42 22.17 141.9 102.85

1987-88 22.91 22.59 21.92 24.02 22.41 24.73 122.5 110.85

1988-89 22.62 26.67 20.48 26.17 21.55 27.29 125.5 118.93

1989-90 33.57 30.75 33.98 28.32 33.77 29.85 144.8 126.97

1990-91 40.98 34.83 38.44 30.47 39.71 32.41 142.3 135.01

1991-92 39.89 38.91 32.78 32.62 36.33 34.97 132.0 143.05

1992-93 37.48 42.99 32.63 34.77 35.05 37.53 116.6 151.09

1993-94 46.66 47.07 42.72 36.92 44.70 40.09 92.16 159.13

1994-95 40.17 51.15 31.1 39.07 35.63 42.65 91.6 167.17

Increase/ 85.02 51.04 68.46 (53.85)


Decrease
over 1985

Source Tea Board Statistics 1991-92.


Tea Company Report 1994.
Note Figures in parenthesis represent decrease.

:iiS
z 3
o 0)
o <

<
|i:Kx«i:;::;:::;:;::x^r,tV':::: •:::-:.:;;::•:::::;;;:;:& o-
Q

I ;x>>:;:x;x:1^::-::-^;::.:V:x::x;:;::x;:v:-:::::>x : • : • : • > : • : • ; • : • : • ; • : • : • : • : • : • : • : •

! • ! " .'•.'• I • ' • . " • ' • ' • . ' ' . * ' ! ' . ' • ^ ' . ' • * ' i
o>
i||;?;ii:^i;iK|!;:i:^ <N
CM o>
o IT'
I
mm mmmmmm^mMmm: <y>
1

T—

: • : • : • : • : • : • > : • : : : • : • : : : : : M > . } \ • : • : • : v : : • : • : • . • : • : • : • : • > : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : : •


T—
ex. . • . • . • . • . • , • . • • • . • . • . • . • • . • • , \ - • . ! • • • • • . • • . • . • . • • . ; , • ; . - . • . ; . ; . ; . ;

•p"."
o 8
; • ; • ; : • ; • . • > : : . ; • : , : : / t • . . . • : •- . , . • . • , • . • • • . • • • > . • . • . • . • . • ; • , • . • . • . • . • . • ,

< • : • : • . • ; • : • • < • . • : • : • ; • • . • • • : • : • : • : a i - r : - . • • : • : • : • . • : • : • . • : • . . • : • : • : • r . • . • . • : • : • : < • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : •

;;:;;:;::::>;;:;:;;;.:;.:;:::;.T:'V;-;-.•:•:•:.;:.:::i.: -XiXXxXix:;::;::::;::::::::;::;:::
T—
:-:-m-m-m::::m:: 'f:':-\-: ::.:•••: m CO
H

' •'•:^\-^' m'•.•.': :'::l^:-: : ' : - : ' V : ' : ' ; :'•' x ' : . ' : : .'':' 'l:':':-:':':':':':-:'\':': oC5 CC a-
T—
•mmm:ym^^^^^^^
LL CD o> ,_ CO tf
oi T—
CO "O
^
(IS
o ^
liJ D mmmm^^^^^^^^
O . • . • . . • . • . • . ' • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . • . . . . ' • . • • . • . • . . • . q . : . . . V ' - - - • • • • • • • . • . • . • . ' • . • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • . • . • . •
a> o CC
: ^ • ^ • ^ ^ • ^ ' • > : : • : • : ^ • • : : • : • : • : ^ • : • : ' : • : • > > : : • ^ : • : • : • ^ : ' • r , ^ . • : : ' : : • : • : • : ^ • • : • > : ^ • ^ • ^ • : • : • : • . • • . ' • . ' • . ' • : • : T~ >
o: ;xx;:;;|;;>:x:;;x;x;x:i:>x:;::x;;;x^ as c
CC Q
Q.
fx'X-xxxxx: 0>
LU • ! • ! ' ' • ! • ! • > ; • ' • • ! • > ! • > ! ' . • ' • ' • • ' ^ - • • ' • ! • ' ^ • • ! ! • ! • ' » ! • ! • ! • ! » . ! • ' . •
XXXlXxXxXxXJ
X::-::::::::X:Xx:::x: T-
c O CT"
• : • > : • :

:i:;:xx;?X:X::::;X;X.X;ix:x:.X:X::;::::::.<:X;::X:^^
• : : * : • . • . • : • • • • • • • • : • : : • ' ' • • ; : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • ; ; : • ; • : • ' ; • : • : •

: • : • : • ; ; • : • : • : • : • : • : • ; • ; • : • : • : •
o
< X:::X::,::;:::;::;::::::x::,::;;;x.:;:X:::X.;,-.::::::;:;:'i: : • : • • > : • : • : • • • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • :
Oil
00
m x;ii:;x:-;x;x;;:;;x;::x-;x.^ T—
m
; • • • • • : • • . . • • • • • . . • • - • • • . . - • . • • , . - . • • . • . ^ ^ , t ' . - - v - . - . . - . • . • . • . - . • . . ,

CO "'
•:-x.:-;-:vX:.;.:X;.: ; ;,• x., .;.: ;.•.:.::•:::.•.:,;; ;x-:X:Xx^::-;jv>X:;:;;::;::::;:;
CO Q>
;:;:::::;xvxx;-;xx-;.xv:::;--:':v;v^-^-^;;v,;:-:x;x^:;:v^^^^^ a? O
T—

Q
>^:::x:;:;'x;;:;>;:;::^;:^:i:x-x-:;:-:-^^ O
; x x - : x < x x ; x x x x x - < x - x-:-.:-;-:-:;-x> ^ . x x X l x ^ x - i ^ V x x X x : ;
.::..^^__—.—_^::...^..__..:...._.::.^.x^
lO CO
Z a:-
IJU CM o
DC

2i0
< CI
> J

-TT^T^^ r^ffr'
O"
. • . • . Ir^''

'.'.•'. I-'-
• \ . •'.-'•

• :•: : • > ^ r ; . : S. :•: . .•: :•.•;•:•::..•:


CO
» '-.-.•. . - . j r ••• • •• •

CSi
: - : • ' • : ' •

.•i , .-. -•- CM


0:'
a?
ay
:;i:iy;ii^;iill:---^;:;^i:
O 8
a:. to
a*
C7>
o t - M-
<J>
: • . • • ^ •
a>
T—
CO "O
iaw ll>a
O ^
r^
05
13 05.
:•:•:•:•;•:•;•:•.;

;>-:':-:-;".-:i^;-:':-;':"-V>:<:-::5
:•:•;•: : - : - : - : - : ' : - ; V - - :

• "••:•:'
CO
o
r':-: :(K.';': •':'-':':^*4r •': CO
<T- v^ > ^
^^^;;:•^^:'^:^;:;;:;;;:f^>^;V;::V;::•: T— CD r*
CU f^ c
00
CO
K
C p. *"
^z
o> o
T -
•a
0^
oo ra
CD
CO
•r • - I - ••• . \ - . - f o> ro H-
"'" • w

.• . • ' \ ' '.•'•. ' - ^


• r . - . . - *, . • . • . • . • ( •

m ;;?i
CO
C7>
O
iw

:-:] CO
-::^ I CO
1 ^

lO
LO o —a ^ LC

|;:;g>;i:^;<«a;-s^-i!^.ii-:>M^>^^^

iil
r

z f-::
Q <

I- I '
O
<

2
<

Q
2 ii';-;-
•v...-'
•^••:::-:-:i;-:>-:-:-:':-:-:

•.•j;;i CM

m ::p-.:. to
h- ;;xii::.i:x:':;": xl-^ii^ a
ri'-i

O o '4=3 a*/
ay
uj - w CO VD
gI
•:•::;;:•;::•:;:•:•^:•:-:•:•;•:•v-^: : • - v ^ - ' ^ v

5o -D
o
'>I«>H

05 CC
QL I CO >- a
Cj
o
••1.; ;.. : ; . : •.:•. • -•,.._.• A "
a- CO a:
re >. .
CO 0^ c o
a. o .",,".•>•,"•• - ^ ^ - " J . '.-.'.--'a .'.['.y .'.•'.•'.•'.•'.•'. CO h- CO -rr
'.•'.'. ','-y'. • •/ • r - ; t ^ > . \ ; / ^ ' " '.i'.-.-'.-'.-'. '.•'.•'••'.
O E .5^
O LL
T3
<: ' • y . ',• y y . 'f- ,•.•'.•'.••'.'.'.•.\£.-.[.- . \ •'.•'.•'.•'*• .-'.• '.•'-•'.•'.•.•'.•
CO a* O
< CO CC!
a- Q
a: !—
UJ • ' • . - . • . • ' • • . - . - ' • ' . • ' • • • ' • ^ . - ' , - • J : ' • • ' ' ' . • ' • ' • ' , • • ' • ' • ' •'
CQ
> CO <p
< o
Q • - > : • . • > ; • ; • " • ; • > ; • ; : > > ; y - ' ^• -; - .; - . r• • • • ,' • . • . - • .

';-:-A-<'.•:•:•:

2
•••.•y V'--

o O a>
LU •«rr CO
1 r^ i^

CC
! • • , - • , • . • • . • . • *

2X2.
m

o
,'^,1

<

o
<

o ' • — f :•••'••: :•:-••:•-;•••:•

Q o>

o
I. : :•• : • . . ; • . . : • : .•: i ; : .

mmmm
£ • : • : • ; ; ; • . • : • : • : • : • : • • • ; : • • • • • • • ; ^
• . | . : - • • • • , - .
^:'xr;xixxx:x:x:xi
. • l , ^ ^ • . • . - x . • . . . X . - . - x . - . - . .-
CD
CM
^-^xxx::xx:^/ CvJ
< k---:--:xi---^x
i7:< [ : • : • : ; : : : • : :•: :•• • : : • ; : •V:-'-x-:':'-:- ^ x • •:

LU T
'7' • i:^:','.'x-X':7.'.•,'.'. T—

o
" ' • ! ' . - • . • ' . ' ' . ' ' . ' . • ' . ' ' . ' ' . ' , • ' . • '
, • >! . X ;_•;•- i • . . . . . ;
iTi •! X • ' ' ! ' . ' ! • ! " ' ' . • i • •' • •! • ! • ! ' ! ' ! • ! ' [ •! *
. ; '/y :•'.•: ' . : • / . . : • :

I I x;;^::x.x;;:xx;:.> CD
< h- - ' T : • • ? • : • . • : • • • . • : -

vX-^:-y:-x:xx-::
Q oil
•:ii>y;-^;-:^ii^ XXXXXXIXXXXXX-
;.:x^xxx:xx: o CO cr
x;:^:^:;-::;;;:.:-
^--^
O 5 • • ' • . . - " ' . - ' . - ' ' '. ' •'. ' ' ' - ' ': • ' • ^ . ' • • • ' V x ' x - x . .'

;;:x-;ii:x::>:::;:;:;:-;::;:;:;;;
CC
05
GO
LU
D
mmm. CO
a?
CD Q :

O :;xx v::;;:: i^:x:.;: . • :<•:•'••' ; r : • • • • •


Qi
•;•:•: • • • ; ; " v ; ' - ^ :•" ' '
CQ
CC .'xxxxVxxxxxxx: OD c E "^
a. o
LU
mmmm-: x--

' - • : • • - • • ' • •
• - • - ? - " T r ' •:•

/ i ' ^ •
a- ^ O
{ -1

1 • • • . ' . - . ' • . - . • . • . - . ' . • -

< • ! - : • • ; • . : • • • . • ; • ; • • . • >

CC C: X ,••••• • : : • • • • : • x ' ; :'

LU K- i X - • •.

> CD
V. X X . 1 , , - , • . • . . ; . • . ; . ; . ; . • . . • - • . • . • . • . • . •
CO p
< j;:;:;:;:x;:x:::;.;;::;x;;x;:> '-'.'i'.'.-'.-'.'.-'.'•'.•'•'.'.•'.•'.•'.•'.•'.•'.•

- % . - • . • • - • • . • . • • • • . • , • , • , • . • .

o
CO
Cj
:x:'x'xxxxx-;-x
m'-^-^'^f-^^^^^^^-^^^^
00
o o
o o
UJ
::-^:|
X^y^riiB^- W i . i ; i ^ms>i^f'>^;:i
-j
5^23
achievements on the production side has been favourable and
encouraging but the exports have not increased with same
pace. The total exports have been stagnant around 200
million kg. The marketing efforts have not been at par with
our production efforts. For too long there has been much
dependence on the auction system.The auctions are necessary,
however now with the decreasing share of auctions sale, the
sale of packeted tea at reasonable prices should be
encouraged to obtain stable return in the capitive market,
which require direct marketing approach. In the open market
compitition, price is the prime consideration, in order to
improve the market share for Indian tea, cost should be
effectively controlled. So three way approach for its export
improvements production augumentation , quality improvement
and cost reduction are reqbired.

6.3 MARKETING OF TEA IN HIMACHAL PRADESH


Product Diversification is an important and progressive
aspect of any Industry. In order to keep pace with the
market forces, the production of tea in Himachal Pradesh
swings- between green tea ^nd black tea, but with changing
taste demands, the produbtion of black tea has increased
during the last five years. From the very beginning
production of green tea was specialised in Himachal Pradesh
and before partition and inception of Co-operative tea
factories in the region, nearly 75 percent of the green tea
produced in the region ^ound its way to Afganistan via
Karachi Harbour. However atter partition, the borders being
closed for trading operations between Pakistan & India, the
tea trade to Afganistan was diverted through Bombay Harbour,
which started entailing delay in delivery and additional
expenditure in transportation. Consequently Afganistan
switched over to China & other tea producing countries for
meeting their requirement of green tea. Consequent upon the
fall in the demand of green tea, the planters in Himachal
Pradesh started producing black tea.

Till the end of 60's the total tea produced in the


region was used to be sold in the Amritsar Auction Market
which used to be the largest trading centre for the Green
tea India. The tea used to be sold through the middle man's,
since there was no direct link between the manufactures and
the traders. But certain malpractices such as giving the
false accounts of the tea sold to the manufactures and
charging exorbitant interest led to the very low returns to
the manufactures and producers. Keeping this bottleneck in
view need was felt to eliminate the middlemen. This led to
the formation of agency. The Kangra Tea Planters Supply and
Marketing Co-operative Industrial society Limited with 16
members at the time of registeration. Presently these are
registered with this society. The Amritsar Tea market
consist of traders who sell to the bigger parties for
blending and exports. Though the auction of tea was
conducted by society, i^s ultimate purchases are the
individual traders in Amritsar market, who at times were not
regular in lifting the stocks & making prompt payment. All
this resulted in drying up of the liquid resources in the
hands of society & delaying the payments to its members.
At present the tea produced in Himachal Pradesh
are sold at two auction centres in India. Green tea is sold
through the Industrial society at Amritsar Auction and Black
tea produced in the region is sold at Calcutta through the
Calcutta Tea trading Corporation, the largest selling agency
for black tea sale in North India. The Calcutta tea trading
corporation is being operated through broker's who are
registered with this Corporation . Tea produced is firstly
sent to the ware houses maintained by this corporation at
Calcutta, from where the broker for the region draws out the
sample for sale at auction, on the basis of which the tea is
sold. The Kangra tea planters supply & Marketing Co-
operative Industrial society charges 5 percent commission
on total sale done by it, where as broker at Calcutta Market
Charges 1 percent Commission on total sale done at
Calucutta Market.
The analysis of the sale of the tea produced in
Himachal Pradesh is based on sale made by the Industrial
Society, Palampur, Bir and Baijnath co-operative tea
factories. The sale figures of Dharamsala co-operative tea
factory which is manufacturing black tea are not taken into
account due to non availability. Table 6.12 shows in case
of sale by Palampur tea factory there has been increase of
153.76 percent during the last 10 years with the annual
increase of 9.75 percent in real terms. In case of Bir co-
operative tea factory it is evident from table 6.13, 6.14
and 6.15 that sale of black tea produced by the factory has
gone down by 53.73 percent with annual decrease of 7.41
percent during the last 10 years. The sale of green tea
produced by the factory reported an increase of 42.53
percent with annual increase of 9.2 6 percent. The total
126
TABLE 6.12
TREND IN SALE OF TEA OF PALAMPUR CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend

1985-86 154.12 236.65


1986-87 352.71 254.95
1987-88 355.99 273 .25
1988-89 170.11 291.55
1989-90 348.61 309.85
1990-91 260.36 309.85

1991-92 260.36 328.15


1992-93 406.30 346.45
1993-94 386.65 364.75
1994-95 391.11 401.35
Increase/ 153.57
Decrease (9.75)
over 1985

Source : Based on Annual Report of Co-op. Tea Factory


Figures in parenthesis represents annual increase

2.21
TABLE 6.13
TREND IN SALE OF BLACK TEA OF BIR CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend

1985-86 31.84 39.25

1986-87 30.23 38.06

1987-88 55.42 36.87

1988-89 20.31 35.68

1989-90 76.86 34.49

1990-91 50.86 33.30

1991-92 29.34 32.11

1992-93 42.05 30.92

1993-94 40.05 29.73

1994-95 14.73 28.54


Increase/ (53.73)
Decrease (7.41)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Co-op. Tea Factory


Figures in parenthesis represents total decrease
and annual decrease

1:^6
TABLE 6.14
TREND IN SALE OF GREEN TEA OF BIR CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend


1985-86 30.66 41.46

1986-87 74.65 44.50

1987-88 60.63 47.54

1988-89 47.31 50.58


1989-90 44.48 53.62
1990-91 50.81 56.67

1991-92 52.37 59.71

1992-93 89.42 62.75

1993-94 77.77 65.79

1994-95 74.36 68.83


Increase/ (42.53)
Decrease (9.26)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Bir Co-operative


Tea Factory.
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

ixq
TABLE 6.15
TREND IN TOTAL SALE BIR OF CO-OPERATIVE TEA FACTORY
1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend


1985-86 33.85 48.51

1986-87 77.67 51.53


1987-88 66.17 54.55
1988-89 49.34 57.57
1989-90 52.16 60.59
1990-91 50.81 63.61
1991-92 52.37 66.63
1992-93 89.42 69.65
1993-94 77.72 72.95
1994-95 74.36 76.04
Increase/ (119.67)
Decrease (8.18)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Bir Co-operative


Tea Factory.
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

250
sale of Bir co-operative tea factory has increased by 119.SI
percent during 1985-1994 with annual increase of 8.18
percent. Table 6.16, 6.17 and 6.18 shows the sale of
Baijnath co-operative tea factory, which shows that sale of
black tea has decreased by 95.62 percent with annual
decrease of 4.63 percent during 1985-1994. In case of green
tea sale of factory has increased by 196.19 percent with
annual increase of 19.83 percent. The total tea sale of
Baijnath co-operative tea factory has increased by 34.35
percent with annual increase of 5.04 percent during last 10
years. The main increase of sale in case of Bir and
Baijnath co-operative tea factories has been reported from
green tea, since these two factories are specializing in
production of green tea. Whereas in case of Palampur tea
factory 95 percent of the total tea production is of black
tea. The total sale of black tea as reported in table 6.19,
shows an increase of 150.27 percent with annual increase of
9.60 percent, whereas in case of green tea the increase has
been to the tune of 339.23 percent with annual increase of
15.94 percent.(Table 6.20) The total sale of tea produced
by the co-operative tea factories in Himachal Pradesh has
increased by 180.50 percent with annual increase of 10.86
percent.(Table 6.21) FIG 6.10 to 6.19 shows the trend in
sale of tea which shows that except for black tea produced
by Bir and Baijnath tea factories which are showing downward
slope, sale of tea is showing a rising trend.
In comparision to the rising trend in sale of co-
operatives, the average price of tea are more or less
fluctuating in real terms table 6.22 shows that average
:2^i
TABLE 6.16
TREND IN SALE OF BLACK TEA OF BAIJNATH CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend


1989-90 24.89 18.6

1990-91 7.3 14 .89


1991-92 14.13 11.18

1992-93 1.99 7.47

1993-94 7.34 3.76

1994-95 1.09 .05


Increase/ (95.62)
Decrease (4.63)
over 1989

Source : Based on Annual Report of Baijnath Co-operative


Tea Factory
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual decrease.
Figure from 1985-86 to 1988-89 not available.

X31
TABLE 6.17
TREND IN SALE OF GREEN TEA OF BAIJNATH CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend

1989-90 19.99 25.48

1990-91 46.55 34.42

1991-92 46.01 43.36

1992-93 59.10 52.30


1993-94 57.86 61.24
1994-95 59.21 70.18
Increase/ (196.19)
Decrease (19.83)
over 1989

Source Based on Annual Report of Baijnath Co-


operative Tea Factory.
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.
Figure from 1985-86 to 1988-89 not available.

2.^z
TABLE 6.18
TREND IN TOTAL SALE OF BAIJNATH CO-OPERATIVE TEA FACTORY
1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend


1989-90 44.89 49.78

1990-91 53.92 52.82


1991-92 60.14 55.82
1992-93 61.09 58.84
1993-94 64.42 61.86
1994-95 60.31 64.88
Increase/ (34.35)
Decrease (5.04)
over 1989

Source Based on Annual Report of Baijnath Co-


operative Tea Factory-
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.
Figure from 1985-86 to 1988-89 not available.

rz4
TABLE 6.19

TREND IN TOTAL SALE OF BLACK TEA IN HIMACHAL PRADESH


1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend


1985-86 157.30 240.31
1986-87 355.74 263.10
1987-88 361.48 281.95
1988-89 172 .14 300.77
1989-90 381.18 319.59
1990-91 272 .81 338.41
1991-92 423.37 354.23
1992-93 392.84 376.45
1993-94 379.75 394.87
1994-95 393.68 413.69
Increase/ (150.27)
Decrease (9.60)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Co-operative Tea


Factories.
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

23 S
TABLE 6.20

TREND IN TOTAL SALE OF GREEN TEA OF CO-OPERATIVE


TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend

1985-86 30.66 35.72

1986-87 74.65 47.76

1987-88 60.63 59.80

1988-89 47.31 71.84

1989-90 64.47 83.88

1990-91 97.36 95.92

1991-92 98.38 107.96

1992-93 150.52 120.00

1993-94 142.20 132.04

1994-95 134.67 144.08

Increase/ (339.23)
Decrease (15.94)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Co-operative Tea


Factories
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

:2.56
TABLE 6.21

TREND IN SALE OF TEA OF CO-OPERATIVE


TEA FACTORIES 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Sale Trend

1985-86 187.97 279.74

1986-87 430.39 310.44

1987-88 422.16 341.10

1988-89 219.46 371.84

1989-90 445.66 402.54

1990-91 370.18 433 .24

1991-92 521.75 463.94

1992-93 541.38 494.64

1993-94 514.61 525.34

1994-95 527.26 556.04


Increase/ (180.50)
Decrease (10.86)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Co-operative Tea


Factory.
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

^37
liJ
I
<
(A
a
z
< UJ
> ex
Q:
o
h- _ 5
O
<
to
LL
ss
h- m
I
TS
UJ
1 I
> o
H O
<
a: s |ll
9>
-s
LiJ
O1 o
u.
o
o CD

a. 5
O s
Q o
z CO
LU o
Ql
h-
\n
-J <9 O
o
<
CO (©><S000)NI3>S

^5e
< c
- 2
1<
liu
1-
• «
m
>
h- i
<
Q:
LU
Q.
|0 «
2
n
o s
1 1 t>
a.
o _;
o
'l O6
u_ o O '

iC
ta

.p
o t—
CO 1 O
1 -e Q'
<i
LU
1 O

«;
Q:
fe.
Ire C<
o < 3 o
u. r
^ J 2
S 5
o> JCC
CO
o re
LL

3
GO
O
4; h-
<A
m
CD

«r
u.
U_
o J CO
V
u
3

Q O
cn
2 •

LU ' -I »
a: 1

h-
UJ
_i
<
CO •
{^.•yi. S-C"'' '-^' 2 " v s

2zq
• •

1
1
6
«c!
s
A •
°S
l'^
ft
S UL

g5
^
(S

s
1
in

liJ
-J
<
CO (£WSO0)Nt3>S

2/^0
i
S5 ^

K
LJJ
>
h-
^ rt
LU s
CL
o ^.
J. ^ 09

?OJ ^?
LL 2 0»

O g
< S Zi to
iiJ
I— ^
S
^ a:
LU i
Qi o 00

O^
u_ ^
O
O
z
tu
en
1- U7
00
o>
LU
-J s o o
<
iO ©VSD00iNI3-W£

2^1
2-4X
-^
1— LU
O Of

< • •
LU

(U
>
X
9>
H- / \>y
< x/^

OH y^ \ «N
1
•^^^^---..^A^ s O.

o1 1 *-
^—^_,,^_^
^ o
o^^

02
OS
\ 1 1 •

\ [
a
Li- » X

LU o \ /
-J ^
06
05
^
1^
**• u.

do
f^ o
\
y
>
CO
rc

0)

5^ 00 V
3
O
(0
^ \
I
LU - "~~^~~~"~~"~T---^ u>
00

1 1 1
a:
K o
O
o
CO
o
<C
o
I*-
c3
<>

feVISDOO.tNIHTijS '

2-43
-J
<, Q
—' Z
^ UJ
o a
; < >—
!• •

S5
^- \ 7 J
LU
> rt
1 - • S
<
S
til 4 S
6
a. i u
OS • t - re —-»

O 8 :iM)
CD
Of^ OJ o
• ^ ;;: e
o.
OB
u.
liJ I |1<
-J 5
<1
<^ ^
O K
CO

-J >
P2
o^
H- ^
Z
05

Q
Z
LJLi
a:
1- o o e
©>^S0CC)N!3-teS

2^4
< c
-' 2
»— UJ

< ^-
• •

25

I-
O I
< UJ

o
-J •g w

UL 00

o 25
' Q.
?J

UJ

©XSOCOiN!="MS

lA^
TREND IN TOTAL SALE OF GREEN TEA IN
CO-OP. TEAFACTORIES FOR 1985-86 TO 1994-95

to
b
o
o I ACTUAL
z
UJ .TREND
—I
<
CO

1985 1986 1987 198S 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
YEARS

Source - Based on Annual Report of Co-operative


Tea Factories (F!G - 4-Ig

146
5 i
< t-

LJ
>
H- Z
<
01
LU
Q.
O
O
O
z s
o
<
ill
1-
U- <»"
O p
u.
LU CO

S
< p
<0 t)
J 2
< iS
K 00
u
h-
o
1-
2
Q
Z CO
CD

LU
OH
\-
s
toMSDC0)NI3-feS

247
TABLE 6.22
TREND IN AVERAGE PRICE OF TEA OF PALAMPUR CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Price Trend


1985-86 15.71 36.34

1986-87 20.17 35.02

1987-88 19.42 33.70

1988-89 21.44 32.38

1989-90 29.74 31.06

1990-91 38.02 29.74

1991-92 32.16 28.42

1992-93 39.62 27.10


1993-94 46.57 25.78
1994-95 40.53 24.46
Increase/ (157.98)
Decrease (9.94)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Co-operative Tea


Factory
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

2^9
price of tea in case of Palampur co-operative tea factory
increased by 157.98 percent with increase of 9.94 percent
annually during last 10 years, but trend in prices as
depicted in FIG 6.20 are showing a declining trend. In case
of Bir co-operative tea factories table 6.23, 6.24 shows
that average price of black tea and green tea has shown an
increase of 335.92 percent and 97.18 percent in real terms
during the last 10 years, but trend in prices as reported in
figure 6.21 and 6.22 is showing a decrease. In case of
Baijnath co-operative tea factory prices have increased by
6.64 percent since 1989-90. Figure 6.23 shows a upward
slope in the average price realised by Baijnath co-operative
tea factory. The combined average price of black tea have
increased by 13.25 percent annually during 1985-1994,
whereas the combined increase in prices of green and black
tea is 9.83 percent with rising trend as reported in table
6.25, 6.2 6 and figure 6.24 and 6.25.

Main reason reported for fluctuation in prices of


tea produced in the region at auctions has been the poor
quality of tea produced in the region, which warrants that,
the quality of tea should be improved to great extent for
survival at the auction centres. The initiative of the
Palampur Co-operative tea factory to switch over towards
packet teas and labelling its few of the good varities
through Brand names like Bageshwari, Kailash is step in
reght earnest in this regard.
ISO
TABLE 6.23
TREND IN AVERAGE PRICE OF BIACK TEA OF BIR CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Price Trend


1985-86 15.81 33.14

1986-87 15.13 31.82

1987-88 15.79 30.5


1988-89 20.92 29.18
1989-90 27.77 27.86
1990-91 21.49 26.54

1991-92 30.87 25.22

1992-93 31.76 23.94


1993-94 43.93 22.58
1994-95 68.92 21.26
Increase/ (335.92)
Decrease (15.86)
over 1-985

Source Based on Ainnual Report of Bir Co-operative


Tea Factory
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

251
TABLE 6.24
TREND IN AVERAGE PRICE OF GREEN TEA OF BIR CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Price Trend


1985-86 15.31 22.57

1986-87 12.78 22.02

1987-88 15.22 21.47

1988-89 16.00 20.92

1989-90 26.18 20.37

1990-91 19.13 19.82


1991-92 31.39 19.27

1992-93 26.36 18.72


1993-94 34.44 18.17

1994-95 25.20 17.62


Increase/ (97.18)
Decrease (7.62)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Bir Co-operative


Tea Factory
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

l^SI.
LU

o
O. Q.

o
O z
a: UJ

m
z

^Z s
Q^
V

CD -
ILS
OS
LU i
o 1 2 CO
a: i!
Q- S >-
4J o
9^
^s
LU 2
>
<
2
Q
Z
LU
o: CO
H-

2S3
Q. UJ
O
O a:
o CL

o o
UJ
X <
1-
<
Z
"> as

< ^
CD a>
2: 0
I—
;o
00

S5
h- a
0 . 05

0 a.

LU ;
o
0 '
2 t')
tr
CL > 05 >-

a: :
\u 0
0 ;;
1 - •

0 < 1 -J
00
CO
< u. \
Q: ^'
LU t— ;

1
CO
>
<
2: ;

Q
zLU
Q: ; o

h- SdNlOMiSdHDfcfcJ

2S4
TABLE 6.25
TREND IN AVERAGE PRICE OF TEA OF BAIJNATH CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Price Trend

1989-90 25.24 27 .78


1990-91 30.92 28 .20
1991-92 29.18 28 .62
1992-93 26.28 29 04
1993-94 37.13 29 46
1994-95 37.13 29 88
Increase/ (47.04)
Decrease (6.64)
over 1989

Source Based on Annual Report of Baijnath Co-


operative Tea Factory
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

-155-
o ' UJ
1 O

o '
i
Q:
Q.

o 1

' $
^ j

o
en ^—
1 '^ cc
r
t—
CD !**


z
^ s
1- ^
(j>

z o
111 >—
111 00
(r
CD 6Pf
LL o
o U-
o o
Lll IE)
o
a: £ 2
Q. J < n
c u.
HI O
CD < 10
< OD
(H ,?i
111 1—

>
<
z
Q
Z
liJ
a:
\ - syNi9>Hiad3Dfea

2.56
TABLE 6.26
TREND IN AVERAGE PRICE OF BLACK TEA OF CO-OPERATIVE
TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Price Trend


1985-86 15.76 11.92

1986-87 17.74 15.94

1987-88 17.60 19.96

1988-89 21.18 23.98

1989-9-0 28.75 28.00


1990-91 29.75 32.02
1991-92 31.51 36.04

1992-93 35.69 40.09


1993-94 45.25 44.12
1994-95 54.72 48.15
Increase/ (247.20)
Decrease (13.25)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Reports of Co-op. Tea


Factories.
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

2S?
TABLE 6.2 7
TREND IN COMBINED AVERAGE PRICE OF TEA OF
CO-OPERATIVE TEA FACTORY 1985-86 TO 1994-95

Year Actual Price Trend


1985-86 15.61 12.95

1986-87 16.02 15.96

1987-88 16.81 18.97

1988-89 19.45 21.98


1989-90 27.23 24.99
1990-91 27.38 28.00
1991-92 30.90 31.01

1992-93 31.00 34.02

1993-94 40.51 37.03


1994-95 39.90 40.04
Increase/ (155.60)
Decrease (9.83)
over 1985

Source Based on Annual Report of Co-op. Tea


Factories.
Figures in parenthesis represents total and
annual increase.

25S
LU

or
a.
Q
Z
^ cc

S5

1
15
«
a.
CO £ o
6
^
b^O
CD
o § e (0
%^
O ^ a.
t)
cc rr
15 *>
o -1 ' C
Q. r
^
e
UJ c U.
o o fa

' CL Ire
CD
I-

^
LU o

$1
V
u
^
o
CO

LU
a:
saNiCMiadHDfefci

IS^
lU
aa.
^
(i
2 ^
O
LU
0)
_J
<
LU ^ §
a: s g 11
< s IS
LLl 2 -I S 1i?
H- 2 6 •rt
^
OS >-
CD
o
1*> tbo
m
(^ ^
2 en tr
76 2
? 'Ceu
Q. ^ 0> ^ to
LU ^ § u.
n
g i ee
s
(0
CD
V
•o H-

^ ^
a: ^
LU i «
> ^ u
w
3
< O
.«,
z <o

Q
Z
LU
a: o e o

1- saNioMiSdasfett

260

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi