International Trade Quarterly Milestones (April-June 2026)

• Initiation of investigations

  The Director General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) initiated 16 trade remedy investigations and reviews in the second quarter of 2026 to examine whether anti-dumping duties need to be imposed or continued on certain imports into India. These investigations focus on products including hot-rolled coils/hot-rolled flat products, aluminium wire, electric tractors, cyanuric chloride, décor paper, and certain antioxidants, among others.¹

  The governments of exporting countries, exporters, and importers of these products in India are expected to actively respond to these investigations to avoid or minimise the impact of trade remedy measures on their businesses.

• Issuance of recommendations for imposition of trade remedy measures

  The DGTR has also recommended trade remedy measures on 13 products: Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE), Virgin Multi-layer Paperboard, Jute Product, PX-13, Calcium Carbonate Filler Masterbatch, Bromo OTBN, Ethylene Diamine, Faced Glass Wool, Thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), Normal Butanol/N-Butyl Alcohol (NBA), Low Ash Metallurgical Coke, Phthalic Anhydride (PAN), and Non-Phthalate Plasticizers (DOTP & DEHCH).

  The implementation of these recommendations by the Ministry of Finance (MoF) is awaited. Importers, exporters, and downstream users of these products should closely monitor the MoF customs notifications, as the imposition of duties will directly affect landed costs and pricing.

• Imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties

  The MoF imposed trade remedy measures on four products, namely, Monoisopropylamine (MIPA), Textured Tempered Glass, Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin, and Sulphenamides Accelerators, covering imports from China PR, Malaysia, European Union, and the United States of America, through customs notifications issued in the Official Gazette.²

  Importers and downstream users of these products must factor the applicable duty rates into their landed cost calculations to avoid additional duty liability, interest, and penalties.

The India–Oman Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) entered into force on 1 June 2026, making it the fifth free trade agreement (FTA) implemented by India since 2014. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs notified the Rules of Origin for the CEPA on 29 May 2026.³

The CEPA provides Indian exports with duty-free market access across 98.08% of Oman’s tariff lines, covering 99.38% of India’s current export value to Oman, with all tariff concessions becoming effective immediately upon entry into force. Sectors benefitting from the CEPA include textiles, gems and jewellery, pharmaceuticals, iron and steel, electrical machinery, marine products, and copper goods.

The CEPA also significantly expands market access for Indian service suppliers. Oman has increased the permissible ceiling for Intra-Corporate Transferees from 20% to 50% and, for the first time under any FTA, has undertaken specific commitments for Indian professionals in IT, engineering, accounting, medical services, and consulting.⁴

The accompanying Rules of Origin play a central role in determining eligibility for these preferential benefits. Goods qualify as originating where they are wholly obtained in either country or satisfy the applicable Product-Specific Rules (PSR). The framework also introduces several facilitative features, including:

• A 10% de minimis threshold, allowing limited use non-originating materials that do not satisfy the change-in-tariff-heading criterion;
• Bilateral cumulation enabling materials originating from either country to be treated as originating in the other during production, significantly expanding the pool of qualifying inputs for Indian manufacturers; and
• A 12-month validity period for Certificates of Origin (COO), alongside a 90-day verification window for responding to origin verification requests.

These provisions aim to provide greater flexibility in structuring regional supply chains while preserving safeguards against misuse of preferential treatment.

This CEPA strengthens India’s trade relationship with a key Gulf partner by combining broad tariff liberalisation with enhanced market access for services. While the agreement could create significant export opportunities across manufacturing and professional services, businesses seeking to claim preferential treatment will need to ensure strict compliance with the Rules of Origin. Robust origin documentation, supply chain traceability and timely certification will be essential to mitigate verification risks and secure the intended benefits under the agreement.

Implementation of the India–EFTA Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA), which entered into force on 1 October 2025, gained further momentum in the second quarter of 2026. At the EFTA Ministerial Meeting held in Reykjavík on 22 June 2026, India and the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) affirmed their commitment to accelerate implementation of the TEPA, with particular focus on its investment chapter. This chapter remains one of the TEPA’s defining features, containing a legally binding commitment by the EFTA States to facilitate USD 100 billion in foreign direct investment into India over 15 years, alongside efforts to support the creation of one million jobs. The renewed political commitment signals an increased focus on operationalising these investment commitments and deepening commercial engagement between the parties.

On the trade front, the TEPA provides Indian exporters with preferential access across nearly 100% of the EFTA market, creating opportunities for sectors like pharmaceuticals, engineering goods, specialty chemicals, textiles, and professional services. Businesses should assess the product schedules and services commitments to identify opportunities, including capital raising and technology transfers, arising from the agreement as implementation progresses.

Like the CEPA, realising the benefits under the TEPA also depends on compliance with the agreement’s Rules of Origin. Products must either be wholly obtained or satisfy the applicable PSRs, which may require a prescribed tariff shift, minimum value addition or specified manufacturing processes. The TEPA also permits bilateral cumulation, enabling inputs sourced from any TEPA Party to be treated as originating materials for the purpose of meeting origin requirements.

This assumes particular significance for Indian manufacturers that rely on high-value inputs from EFTA countries, especially Switzerland, including active pharmaceutical ingredients, precision engineering components and specialty chemicals. Businesses seeking preferential treatment should therefore review their supply chains against the applicable origin criteria and maintain diligent production and cost records to substantiate origin claims, particularly as the TEPA permits customs authorities to undertake retrospective verification.

The legal challenge to the Customs authorities’ ongoing investigation into imports of copper tubes and pipes from Vietnam under the ASEAN-India FTA (AIFTA) saw significant developments. The investigation concerns allegations that exporters incorrectly declared Regional Value Content (RVC) in COOs to claim preferential duty benefits under the AIFTA. Show cause notices issued to importers across multiple jurisdictions were challenged before the Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts.

In M/s Krn Heat Exchangers and Refrigeration Limited & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions, reiterating the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised against the mere issuance of a show cause notice.⁵

The Delhi High Court adopted a similar approach in Rajasthan Metals & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., while also examining the AIFTA framework in greater detail. The Court held that:

• The AIFTA’s COO verification process is facilitative rather than mandatory;
• A COO constitutes prima facie evidence and does not conclusively bind the Customs authorities; and
• The treaty’s inter-State dispute settlement mechanism does not oust the jurisdiction of Indian Customs authorities to examine eligibility for preferential treatment under domestic law.

Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere at the show cause notice issuance stage and directed importers to raise all factual and legal, including treaty-based, defences before the adjudicating authority, which is required to pass a reasoned order. The importers have challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court. While issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court has permitted adjudication proceedings to continue but directed that no final adjudication orders be passed pending further consideration.

These decisions reinforce the judiciary’s reluctance to intervene at the show cause notice stage, even where disputes involve the interpretation and application of international trade agreements. Importers claiming preferential tariff treatment under the AIFTA should therefore be prepared to substantiate compliance with applicable Rules of Origin, including RVC calculations and supporting origin documentation, during departmental adjudication rather than expecting early judicial intervention. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision is likely to provide important guidance on the interplay between treaty obligations, Rules of Origin verification and the powers of Customs authorities in administering preferential trade agreements.