With reference to the "Tea Board" in India, consider the following statements : 1. The Tea Board is a statutory body. 2. It is a regulatory body attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. 3. The Tea Board's Head Office is situated in Bengaluru. 4. The Board has overseas offices at Dubai and Moscow. Which of the statements given above are correct ?

Shows a concrete example where a certification/regulatory office (Directorate of Marketing and Inspection for AGMARK) is described as an 'attached office' of the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare.

A student could use this pattern (commodity/quality-regulatory bodies being attached offices of the Ministry) and check whether the Tea Board is listed similarly under the Ministry or under another ministry/department.

Explains that specific certification systems (PGS-India) are implemented under the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, illustrating that the Ministry hosts programmatic/regulatory frameworks for agricultural products.

One can extend this by asking whether tea, as an agricultural commodity, falls under such Ministry-implemented frameworks or under a separate commodity board attached to that Ministry.

States that the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare is the nodal department for the horticulture sector, indicating the Ministry serves as nodal/oversight body for wide agricultural subsectors.

A student could use the nodal-role pattern and consult an official list of nodal agencies/commodity boards to see if the Tea Board is administered by this Department/Ministry.

Gives an example (NPOP vs PGS-India) of different certification/regulatory mechanisms being allocated to different ministries/agencies (Ministry of Commerce via APEDA vs Ministry of Agriculture), showing commodity governance can be split across ministries.

Apply this rule by checking whether tea governance might be under Commerce (export focus) or Agriculture (production/quality focus) rather than assuming it is with one particular Ministry.

Mentions the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation, and Farmers Welfare as the executing agency for national agricultural ICT interventions, reinforcing that the Ministry frequently executes sectoral agricultural functions.

Use this pattern — Ministry as executing/overseeing agency — to look up whether the Tea Board's administrative control fits this common arrangement or is independent/under another ministry.

Lists major tea-growing states and explicitly includes Karnataka among minor tea producers.

A student could note Karnataka's tea role and check whether a national board's head office is sometimes located in a producing state (compare locations of other commodity boards).

Identifies Assam, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu as the principal tea-producing states (with Assam dominant).

A student could use this pattern to hypothesize that a Tea Board HQ might more plausibly be located in or near leading production areas rather than in Karnataka/Bengaluru, and then verify.

Again emphasises Assam, Darjeeling/Jalpaiguri (West Bengal), Tamil Nadu and Kerala as major tea regions.

Use the concentration of production in these states to assess plausibility of a national board being headquartered in a major producing region versus a non-major producer like Karnataka.

Describes the geographic/climatic regions best for tea (Himalayan foothills, certain highlands), highlighting where core production clusters lie.

Compare these geographic clusters to the location of Bengaluru (southern interior) to judge whether Bengaluru sits within primary tea regions—if not, that weakens the expectation the HQ would be there.

Mentions Karnataka in an economic/geographic context (as hinterland for a nearby port), showing Karnataka's regional economic role.

A student could combine Karnataka's economic ties with the fact it is not listed among top tea producers to assess whether Bengaluru is a likely administrative centre for the Tea Board.

Shows India is a major tea producer and exporter (ranks second globally), implying institutional interest in overseas marketing and export facilitation.

A student could infer that major exporters often maintain overseas offices in key importing markets (check Tea Board office list or major import hubs like Dubai).

Describes the scale and export-orientation of India's tea industry (large production, employment), suggesting government/export bodies may support overseas presence.

Combine this with knowledge of major Gulf importers to assess plausibility of a Tea Board office in Dubai and then verify official Tea Board contacts.

Mentions a world distribution map of tea production, highlighting the global nature of tea trade and potential focus on overseas markets.

Use a world map to identify major import regions (Middle East/Gulf) where a Tea Board office might be strategically placed, then search for offices in those cities (e.g., Dubai).

Notes a recent India–UAE CEPA reducing tariffs and expanding market access, which increases incentives for Indian exporters to strengthen presence in the UAE.

A student could reason that trade agreements raise the chance India would have institutional/export promotion presence in UAE (check if the Tea Board established a Dubai office post-CEPA).

Provides an example of Indian authorities setting up foreign or sub-foreign offices/offices of exchange to serve international needs.

By analogy, one could expect other Indian export-promotion bodies (like the Tea Board) to create overseas offices in major trade/transport hubs — candidate cities include Dubai.

Identifies Russia as one of the world's major tea‑drinking countries (lists Russia among nations where tea is the national drink).

A student could infer that India might seek representation or promotion in large tea‑consuming markets like Russia and check Tea Board outreach or offices in Moscow.

States India is a leading producer and significant exporter of tea, implying institutional interest in international markets.

One could reasonably expect export promotion bodies (e.g., Tea Board) to maintain overseas presence in key import markets such as Russia and investigate Tea Board offices list.

Mentions global distribution of tea production (world–distribution map), highlighting the international trade context for tea.

Use the world distribution context to identify major importers/consumers and then look for whether the Tea Board has offices in those countries (e.g., Moscow).

Notes that tea from certain regions is exported, reinforcing that Indian tea participates in international markets.

Combine export emphasis with knowledge of large tea markets (like Russia) to justify checking whether export promotion includes an office in Moscow.

Describes that India establishes principal foreign offices and sub‑offices for international services and export facilitation.

Apply this pattern of setting up foreign offices to export sectors (such as tea) and seek whether the Tea Board follows similar practice by placing an office in Moscow.