International Trade Quarterly Milestones (July to September 2026)

• Initiation of investigations
  
  The Director General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) initiated 25 trade remedy investigations and reviews in the second quarter of 2026 to examine whether anti-dumping duties should be imposed or continued on certain imports into India. These investigations focus on products including persulphates, sodium cyanide, toluene dilsocyanate (TDI), glycine, certain counterbalance forklifts, copper tubes, writing and printing paper, among others.
  
  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 25 products: PET films, jute products, clear float glass, aluminium flat-rolled products, melamine, normal butanol, UV 770, wallpapers, diisononyl phthalate and HFC components, among others.
  
  The implementation of these recommendations by the Ministry of Finance (MoF) is awaited. Importers, exporters, and downstream users of these products should 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 two products: low-ash metallurgical coke and calcium carbonate filler masterbatch.
  
  Importers and downstream users of these products must immediately factor the applicable duty rates into their landed cost calculations.

The India-United Kingdom Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (India-UK CETA) entered into force on 15 July 2026. The corresponding rules governing the determination of origin for preferential treatment (Rules) were notified on 3 July 2026.¹

For imports into India, the Rules prescribe an Origin Declaration completed by the exporter or producer as proof of origin. A good qualifies as originating if it is: wholly obtained in either or both parties; produced entirely from originating materials; or meets the applicable product-specific rules for goods containing non-originating materials. The Rules also address qualifying value content, cumulation, tolerance, non-qualifying operations and goods transiting through third countries.

Origin Declarations must follow the prescribed format in Annexure B and remain valid for 12 months from the date of completion. Importers claiming preference must maintain supporting records, which may be verified under Rule 26.

The agreement combines tariff liberalisation with facilitative customs architecture and expanded access to services. It provides zero-duty access on nearly 99% of India’s exports, covering almost 100% of trade value, and is expected to promote bilateral trade, attract investment and create new opportunities for businesses. Businesses intending to claim preference should review their tariff classifications, product-specific origin rules, sourcing patterns and supporting records, particularly where production involves non-originating materials, multiple suppliers or regional supply chains.

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), recently prescribed² the procedure for implementing the India-UK CETA’s self-certification mechanism. Under the framework, exporters or producers in the United Kingdom must complete an Origin Declaration in accordance with Rule 16 and Annexure B of the Rules.

Authentication of the Origin Declaration is a pre-condition for claiming preferential tariff treatment in India. While authentication confirms the declaration’s genuineness and valid use, it does not establish that the goods satisfy the applicable rules of origin.

For authentication, the UK exporter or producer must email the Origin Declaration simultaneously to the designated CBIC email address and the Indian importer’s ICEGATE-registered email address. Once authenticated, a Unique Reference Number is issued, which the importer must quote in the relevant Bill of Entry to claim preferential treatment.

The procedure also covers goods arriving in India on or after 15 July 2026, as well as goods already under customs control on that date, including warehoused goods. For such goods, an Origin Declaration completed and authenticated on or after 15 July 2026 may be accepted, with the Unique Reference Number quoted in the relevant ex-bond Bill of Entry.

Origin Declarations are valid for 12 months from completion and ordinarily apply to a single shipment. Businesses should therefore coordinate with UK suppliers, ensure their ICEGATE-registered email details are accurate, and incorporate the authentication process into their customs clearance procedures.

The CBIC, recently, clarified that Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act) and the Customs Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements Rules, 2020 (CAROTAR, 2020) must be applied consistently with the Rules of Origin under the relevant trade agreement, which prevail in case of conflict.³

For imports under the India-UK CETA, a valid Origin Declaration is sufficient proof of origin. Importers need not submit Form-I under CAROTAR, 2020 with the Bill of Entry or as a pre-condition for claiming preferential tariffs. However, where an origin-related risk alert is raised and the proper officer has reason to believe that the origin criteria are not met, the relevant information specified in Form-I under Section 28DA read with Rule 5 of CAROTAR, 2020 may be sought. Importers need not obtain confidential information from exporters or producers, and failure to provide such information alone cannot justify denial of preferential treatment.

Subsequent consignments cannot be treated as identical merely because they share the same description, tariff classification, exporter, producer or technical characteristics. Importers must be given an opportunity to provide additional information before an earlier origin determination is applied to later consignments; material differences must be assessed independently.

This reduces routine documentation requirements for India-UK CETA claims while preserving targeted origin verification. Importers should therefore maintain supporting origin records even where Form-I is not required at the time of clearance.

The CBIC has clarified the sequencing of adjudication for the recovery of duty under Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, where the underlying duty credit scrip, licence or certificate issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (Foreign Trade Act) has not been cancelled by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).⁴

Two categories of cases are distinguished:

• Customs-related misdeclaration: Where the allegation concerns misclassification, overvaluation or other incorrect declarations in the shipping bill, Customs or the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) must first investigate and adjudicate the alleged misdeclaration and, where warranted, amend the shipping bill. The matter may then be referred to DGFT for consequential action against the instrument or scrip.
• Policy or eligibility issues: Where the dispute concerns policy interpretation, eligibility or entitlement under the instrument or scrip, DGFT’s determination will guide the subsequent Customs or DRI proceedings.

Where DGFT cannot cancel an instrument or scrip on technical or legal grounds, including due to a court ruling, adjudicating authorities must not keep Section 28AAA proceedings pending solely for want of cancellation. They must proceed to adjudicate the matter on its merits in accordance with the law.

The clarification makes the nature of the underlying dispute critical to determining the sequence of proceedings and the respective roles of Customs and DGFT. Businesses facing Section 28AAA proceedings should therefore assess whether the allegations concern customs-related misdeclaration or issues of policy, eligibility or entitlement under the relevant instrument.

In Oxane Partners India Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.,⁵ service exporters challenged two notifications⁶ which amended the Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS) framework by excluding certain services under Appendix 3E for FY 2019-20 and imposing a cap on benefits. The petitioners contended that these changes retrospectively deprived them of benefits already accrued on services rendered and foreign exchange earned under the prevailing policy.

The Gujarat High Court held that though Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act empowered the Government to amend the Foreign Trade Policy, it did not permit retrospective amendments that extinguished accrued benefits. The Court held that the notifications would operate prospectively from their respective dates of issue and directed the authorities to process the petitioners’ claims for the earlier period and grant consequential benefits.

The decision reinforces that export incentives accrued under the applicable policy cannot be withdrawn retrospectively after the relevant export performance has been completed.

In M/s. S.M. Apparels Private Limited v The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo), Chennai-VII & Anr.,⁷ the Madras High Court set aside an order seeking recovery of drawback of INR 4,99,69,796 on exports covered by 1,583 shipping bills filed between 8 January 2004 and 28 November 2007. The show cause notice was issued only in 2018.

The Court held that while Rule 16 of the Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Amendment Rules, 2006  did not prescribe a limitation period, drawback recovery proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time. As the case involved no allegation of fraud or suppression, and the authorities had not explained the prolonged delay, the recovery action could not be sustained. The Court also held that the petitioner could not be relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, where the impugned order itself was passed beyond a reasonable period. Accordingly, the Court set aside the order-in-original and the consequential attachment of the petitioner’s bank account.

The decision underscores the principle that the absence of an express statutory limitation period does not permit indefinite delay in initiating drawback recovery proceedings, particularly where fraud or suppression is not alleged.

In Jaiprakash Associates Limited v Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) & Anr.,⁸ the Delhi High Court examined whether customs proceedings relating to an import made before the insolvency commencement date could continue after approval of a resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). In this case, although the Customs Department issued a pre-notice consultation letter and show cause notice during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), it did not submit a claim before the resolution professional.

The Court held that a claim under the IBC arises from the underlying right to payment, irrespective of whether it has been adjudicated or crystallised into a final demand. Accordingly, the subsequent issuance of the consultation letter and show cause notice did not alter the pre-CIRP nature of the customs liability.

Since the Customs Department had not submitted its claim through the CIRP, the Court held that the claim stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan and could not be pursued thereafter. It accordingly set aside the order confirming differential customs duty, interest and penalty.

The decision reinforces that customs and other statutory authorities must pursue pre-CIRP claims through the insolvency resolution process and cannot seek to enforce such claims after the resolution plan has been approved.