DGTR Arylides Anti-Dumping Duty 2026: 5-Year Extension

India may continue charging anti-dumping duty on certain Arylides imported from China for another five years. The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), in its final findings dated 12 October 2026, has recommended keeping the existing duty rates after examining whether Chinese imports could continue to harm Indian manufacturers.

The investigation covers five types of Aceto Acetyl Derivatives of Aromatic or Heterocyclic Compounds, commonly called Arylides. These chemicals are mainly used in pigment manufacturing and related industrial applications. The recommended duty rates range from 24.79% to 44.90% of the CIF value, depending on the producer and the conditions specified in the duty table.

The recommendation does not mean a new five-year duty has already been imposed. The Ministry of Finance had earlier extended the existing anti-dumping duty until 13 January 2027 through Notification No. 17/2026-Customs (ADD), dated 10 July 2026. DGTR's latest recommendation concerns a further five-year continuation, which requires a separate Central Government notification.

For Indian chemical importers, pigment manufacturers and businesses sourcing raw materials from China, the findings raise several practical questions. Which products are covered? What rate applies to each supplier? Have the relevant HS codes changed? And what should businesses check before importing?

The answers depend on both DGTR's findings and the customs notifications currently in force.

DGTR Final Findings 2026 at a Glance

The important point is that DGTR has recommended continuing the existing rates, not increasing them. The products and conditions covered by the duty also remain central to deciding whether a particular import attracts it.

What Is the Regulatory Framework for Anti-Dumping Duty on Arylides?

Anti-dumping duty is imposed to address injury caused by dumped imports. It is not a general tax on everything imported from a particular country.

Dumping is assessed by comparing an export price with the normal value determined under the applicable rules. Where the investigation establishes the necessary conditions, anti-dumping duty may be imposed to address the injury caused to domestic industry.

Which Laws Govern Anti-Dumping Duty in India?

The legal framework mainly comes from the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995.

For the present investigation, two provisions are especially relevant.

Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

This provision deals with the duration of anti-dumping duty. A definitive measure generally expires after five years unless its continuation is supported through the prescribed legal process.

Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995

Rule 23 provides for reviews of anti-dumping measures. In a sunset review, the authority considers whether ending an existing duty is likely to result in continued or recurring dumping and injury.

A sunset review is therefore not the same as imposing anti-dumping duty for the first time.

What Is the Role of DGTR and CBIC?

DGTR conducts investigations into trade-remedy matters, examines evidence from interested parties and recommends suitable measures to the Central Government.

The Ministry of Finance issues the relevant customs notification imposing, amending or continuing anti-dumping duty. Customs authorities then administer the applicable duty during import clearance.

For importers, this distinction is important.

A DGTR recommendation explains the outcome of the investigation. The legally applicable duty must be determined from the relevant customs notification.

Why Was the Sunset Review of Arylides Started?

The original anti-dumping investigation concerning Arylides from China began on 21 August 2020.

After examining imports and their effect on Indian manufacturers, DGTR issued its final findings on 19 August 2021. The Ministry of Finance subsequently imposed anti-dumping duty through Notification No. 60/2021-Customs (ADD), dated 14 October 2021.

As that measure approached the end of its original term, Laxmi Organic Industries Limited requested a sunset review. The company also sought an increase in the existing duty.

DGTR initiated the review on 19 March 2026.

What Did DGTR Need to Examine?

The investigation focused on whether ending the existing duty would make dumping and injury likely to continue or return.

To answer this, DGTR considered several matters.

1. Pricing of Chinese imports

The authority examined export prices and compared them with the normal values determined under the investigation.

2. Condition of the Indian industry

It reviewed production, sales, profitability, inventories, capacity utilisation and other indicators.

3. Import volumes and market trends

The investigation considered how imports from China had moved during the injury period and how significant those imports remained in the Indian market.

4. Available capacity in China

DGTR looked at whether Chinese producers had spare capacity that could support higher exports if the duty ended.

5. Possible effects on Indian users

The authority also examined the available evidence concerning businesses that use Arylides in pigment production and other manufacturing activities.

Investigation and Injury Analysis Period

The wider injury period allowed DGTR to compare industry performance over time rather than relying on a single year's results.

What Has DGTR Recommended in Its Final Findings?

The authority's main recommendation is to continue the existing anti-dumping duty on the covered Arylides for another five years. DGTR reached this position after concluding that dumping continued despite the duty and that removing the measure could expose Indian manufacturers to further injury.

1. Existing Duty Rates Should Continue

DGTR recommended retaining the rates imposed under Notification No. 60/2021-Customs (ADD). The recommended rates depend on the producer and the origin and export conditions specified in the duty table.

2. The Recommended Period Is Five Years

The authority proposed a further five-year period. Under paragraph 137 of the final findings, that period would run from the date of the notification issued by the Central Government to give effect to the recommendation. The date of DGTR's findings, 12 October 2026, should not be treated as the commencement date of the recommended five-year period.

3. DGTR Did Not Recommend Increasing the Rates

The domestic industry had requested continuation and enhancement of the duty. DGTR ultimately recommended maintaining the existing rates. Nantong Acetic Acid Chemical Co., Ltd. had also requested a lower duty based on the injury margin determined during the latest investigation. DGTR did not accept that request.

4. Why Did DGTR Support Continuation?

The authority considered several findings together:

• Chinese exports continued to be made at dumped prices.
• Imported goods undercut domestic selling prices.
• The domestic industry continued to face financial losses.
• Chinese producers had significant unused production capacity.
• India remained an important export market for the participating producers.
• Ending the duty could increase the risk of further dumping and injury.

These findings formed the basis of the recommendation.

The continuation itself, however, still depends on the relevant government notification.

Which Arylides Are Covered Under the Investigation?

The anti-dumping investigation concerns five specified Arylides varieties. It does not automatically cover every chemical sold commercially as an Arylide.

Covered Arylides Products

DGTR confirmed that the product scope remains unchanged from the original investigation.

Where Are These Chemicals Used?

The covered Arylides are primarily used as chemical intermediates in the manufacture of pigments. The findings identify their use in producing different types of yellow pigments. They also refer to applications involving orange and red pigments and the agrochemical sector.

Businesses involved in these activities may buy Arylides directly from overseas suppliers or obtain them through Indian chemical traders.

Which Products Are Excluded?

The final findings expressly exclude all forms of Arylides other than the five covered products.

The investigation also discusses several excluded, specialised derivatives, including:

• Acetoacet-p-anisidide (AAPA).
• Acetoacet-p-chloroanilamide (AAPCA).
• Acetoacet-p-chloro-o-anisidide (AAPCOA).
• Acetoacet-p-toluidide (AAPT).

These are examples from the detailed product discussion, not an exhaustive reproduction of every excluded chemical named in the investigation.

Why Does Product Identification Matter?

The commercial name on an invoice may not provide enough information to determine duty coverage.Before treating an import as covered, the business should compare its exact chemical description with the product under consideration.

Relevant technical details may include the product specification, chemical identity and supporting manufacturer information. A product should not be treated as covered solely because it belongs to a related chemical family.

Which HS Codes Apply to Arylides Imports from China?

The DGTR final findings classify the product under consideration under customs subheading 2924 29. The investigation also refers to imports under the tariff items 2924 29 20, 2924 29 30 and 2924 29 90.

However, there is an important difference between the codes discussed in the findings and the amended customs notification.

What Changed in April 2026?

Notification No. 06/2026-Customs (ADD), dated 30 April 2026, amended several anti-dumping notifications. For Notification No. 60/2021-Customs (ADD), it replaced references to tariff item 2924 29 90 with tariff items 2924 29 91 and 2924 29 99.

This amendment came into force on 1 May 2026.

HS Code Position for Importers

The October DGTR findings and the April customs amendment should therefore be read together.

An importer should check the current tariff classification and the amended, legally operative notification rather than simply copying the codes from the DGTR duty table. DGTR also states that the tariff classification is indicative and does not determine the full scope of the investigation. The product description and the applicable legal notification remain essential when assessing anti-dumping duty.

What Are the Recommended Anti-Dumping Duty Rates on Arylides?

DGTR recommended continuing the existing producer-specific rates without enhancement.

The rates are expressed as percentages of the CIF value of the imported goods.

Producer-Specific Duty Table

Source: DGTR Final Findings, paragraph 137. These are recommended continuation rates, subject to the operative customs notification and applicable amendments.

Why Are Different Rates Recommended?

The original duty structure distinguishes between named producers and other covered producers. During the review, Nantong and Qingdao Haiwan participated in the investigation and submitted information to DGTR.

The authority examined their individual export prices, dumping margins and injury margins using the relevant investigation methodology. It nevertheless decided that continuing the existing producer-specific duty rates was appropriate.

Does Every Arylides Import Attract 44.90% Duty?

No.

The duty depends on the product, producer and the relevant origin and export conditions.

Where an importer qualifies for a producer-specific rate, that rate may differ from the rate applicable to other covered producers. Likewise, the investigation's product exclusions must be considered before applying any rate.

The duty table should not be read as imposing a uniform 44.90% charge on all chemicals imported from China.

What Were the Main Findings on Dumping and Injury?

DGTR examined the pricing and financial evidence before deciding whether the anti-dumping duty should continue. Two important measures in the findings are the dumping margin and injury margin.

Dumping Margins Determined by DGTR

A dumping margin indicates the difference between the normal value and export price determined under the anti-dumping rules. It is not the same as the duty percentage charged at customs.

Injury Margins Determined by DGTR

The injury margin reflects the comparison between the determined non-injurious price and the relevant landed import value. DGTR found positive dumping and injury margins during the review.

What Happened to Imports from China?

Imports from China remained substantial throughout the period examined. The published import-volume table records the following figures:

Imports rose in the earlier years and then declined during the period of investigation compared with 2024–25. Even after this decline, Chinese imports remained above the volume recorded in 2022–23.

The findings also report an 18% increase over the injury period. However, this stated percentage does not reconcile directly with the disclosed starting and ending volumes. The numerical inconsistency requires source clarification rather than an assumed correction.

Did Chinese Imports Undercut Indian Selling Prices?

DGTR examined landed import values against the domestic industry's net sales realisation. The authority found positive price undercutting across all five covered Arylides varieties.

The findings also record price depression and price suppression.

• Price depression means selling prices declined during the period under review.
• Price suppression concerns selling prices being held below levels that otherwise might have been achievable, including situations in which prices do not reflect relevant cost movements.

DGTR found that the domestic industry's selling prices declined faster than its cost of sales during the injury period. The authority considered this an indication of continued pricing pressure from dumped imports.

What Was the Condition of the Indian Industry?

The investigation identified improvements in certain operating indicators while the anti-dumping duty was in force. These included aspects of production and sales performance.

However, the authority also found that the domestic industry faced financial difficulties.

The findings refer to:

• Losses from 2023–24 onwards.
• Cash losses during the period of investigation.
• Negative return on investment.
• Increased inventories.
• Continued pressure on selling prices.

DGTR concluded that better production or sales volumes did not necessarily mean the injury had disappeared.

The review was concerned with what could happen if the existing duty ended.

Why Did DGTR Find a Risk of Continued Dumping and Injury?

The authority considered the possibility that the situation could worsen if the existing measure were withdrawn.

Its assessment relied on pricing behaviour, production capacity and export trends.

1. Significant Unused Capacity in China

The participating Chinese producers had substantial idle production capacity. DGTR's conclusions state that their unused capacity represented approximately 130–140% of Indian demand for the product under consideration.

The authority considered this relevant because the producers could potentially increase exports if the duty ended. Unused capacity alone does not establish that exports will increase. DGTR considered it together with other evidence.

2. India Was an Important Export Market

The investigation found that India was the principal export market for the participating Chinese producers. This was relevant to DGTR's assessment of whether they might direct additional sales to India after the duty expired.

3. Third-Country Export Prices Raised Concerns

DGTR examined the prices at which the participating producers sold Arylides in markets outside India. The authority found that a substantial share of those exports was priced below the non-injurious price determined for the Indian domestic industry.

The comparison did not establish dumping in those other countries. It was considered as part of the assessment of the producers' export-pricing behaviour.

4. Existing Duties Had Not Removed All Injury

DGTR found that dumped imports continued even while anti-dumping duty was in force. The domestic industry's financial indicators remained under pressure. Based on the combined evidence, the authority considered continued protection necessary to address the likelihood of further dumping and injury.

How Could the Recommended Duty Continuation Affect Indian Businesses?

The impact will not be identical for every business. An importer buying covered Arylides directly from China may face different considerations from a manufacturer purchasing them through an Indian supplier. The relevant producer, product type and customs treatment will influence the actual commercial position.

Impact on Chemical Importers

For importers, the first issue is duty applicability.

A business needs to establish whether the product is covered, which producer supplied it and which rate applies under the current customs notification. Where different producer-specific rates are available, the applicable rate can affect landed costs and sourcing decisions.

The business may also need to review whether its invoices and import documents contain sufficient information to support the claimed treatment. These are matters where appropriate import compliance services and customs-related professional guidance may be useful.

Impact on Pigment Manufacturers

Arylides are used as intermediates in pigment manufacturing. Companies importing these chemicals may need to consider the applicable duty when planning raw-material purchases and production costs. Businesses purchasing from domestic traders should also understand whether changes in imported-input costs are being reflected in supplier quotations.

The actual effect will depend on the quantity of Arylides used, supply arrangements and the applicable customs treatment.

Impact on Domestic Arylides Manufacturers

The investigation was initiated at the request of the domestic industry. DGTR's findings support the view that continuing the anti-dumping duty is necessary to counter the likely harmful effects of dumped imports. For domestic manufacturers, the measure is intended to address unfair pricing conditions rather than prohibit legitimate imports.

Impact on Chinese Producers and Exporters

The recommended rates continue to distinguish between named producers and other covered manufacturers.

Correct producer identification therefore remains relevant. Exporters and importers should pay attention to the prescribed invoice conditions and information required under the applicable customs notification.

Impact on Chemical Traders and Industrial Buyers

Businesses trading in covered Arylides may need to review procurement plans and contractual arrangements.

Points worth examining include supplier identity, the validity of quoted prices, expected customs treatment and documentation responsibilities. These are practical commercial considerations. The October findings do not independently impose a new licensing or registration process on chemical traders.

What Did DGTR Find About the Impact on Downstream Industries?

An anti-dumping duty can affect the industries that use the imported product as an input.

DGTR therefore considered whether continuing the duty on Arylides would disproportionately affect manufacturers of pigments and downstream products.

What Information Did Downstream Users Provide?

DGTR invited importers, consumers and other interested parties to provide information during the investigation. However, no Indian user or importer submitted the prescribed economic-interest questionnaire response.

The authority therefore relied on the material available on record, including the domestic industry's estimates.

Estimated Cost Impact on Downstream Products

The domestic industry submitted an assessment relating to coatings, plastics and ink applications.

These are the estimates examined during the investigation. They should not be treated as actual cost increases experienced by every business in those industries.

DGTR also considered a sensitivity assessment in which the assumed Arylides share in pigment costs was doubled. Under that assumption, the estimated impact on downstream products remained below 1%, at approximately 0.35%–0.89%.

Did DGTR Expect a Supply Shortage?

The authority considered that continuing the duty would not prevent imports or create a shortage of the subject goods.

It also examined domestic manufacturing capacity and investments connected with the product. On the available evidence, DGTR concluded that the impact on downstream users would be negligible. Individual businesses should still examine their own sourcing and cost structures rather than treating the investigation estimates as universal figures.

What Commercial Invoice Declaration Is Required for Producer-Specific Rates?

The DGTR final findings contain a specific proposed documentary condition for applying the individual producer rates. Paragraph 139 requires a valid commercial invoice carrying a declaration identifying the manufacturer of the covered goods.

What Details Must the Declaration Contain?

The proposed declaration covers the following information:

• Product and shipment volume: The quantity of covered Arylides sold for export to India.
• Manufacturer's identity: The name of the manufacturing company.
• Manufacturer's address: The address of the manufacturer in the People's Republic of China PR.
• Declaration of correctness: Confirmation that the information supplied is complete and correct.
• Authorised signatory: The name and official function of the person signing the declaration.
• Date and signature: A dated declaration signed by an official of the entity issuing the invoice.

The declaration should follow the wording prescribed in the applicable legal instrument.

What Happens If the Required Invoice Is Missing?

Paragraph 140 of the final findings states that, where the specified invoice is not presented, the rate applicable to all other producers will apply.

Under DGTR's recommended table, that rate is 44.90%. This is an important part of the recommendation for businesses seeking a lower producer-specific rate.

However, the documentary requirements legally applicable to an actual shipment must be checked against the operative customs notification. The October recommendation should not be treated as independently introducing a new enforceable invoice condition.

Can Customs Authorities Check the Declaration?

Yes. DGTR states that the invoice condition does not prevent customs authorities from carrying out independent verification under applicable customs law. Importers should therefore ensure that manufacturer information is accurate and supported by relevant documentation.

How Is Anti-Dumping Duty on Arylides Calculated?

The recommended duty is calculated as a percentage of the CIF value of the covered imported goods. CIF stands for Cost, Insurance and Freight.

The appropriate customs assessable value and legal valuation provisions must be used for the actual assessment.

What Factors Affect the Duty Calculation?

1. Customs assessable value

The relevant assessable value forms the base for the percentage-based duty, subject to the applicable valuation requirements.

2. Applicable anti-dumping duty rate

The rate depends on the covered goods, producer and origin/export conditions.

3. Applicable exchange rate

Paragraph 138 of the findings refers to the government-notified exchange rate under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proposed arrangement identifies the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry under Section 46 as the relevant date.

4. Payment currency

The recommendation provides for payment of the anti-dumping duty in Indian currency.

5. Other applicable customs duties and taxes

Anti-dumping duty should not be confused with basic customs duty, Integrated GST or other charges that may apply. The complete liability must be assessed under the applicable legal provisions.

Are Arylides Imports Under Advance Authorisation Eligible for Duty Relief?

DGTR's findings refer to imports made under the Advance Authorisation Scheme. Advance Authorisation is a mechanism under India's foreign trade framework through which qualifying inputs may be imported under specified duty-exemption conditions for export production.

The authority observed that significant quantities of the covered Arylides had been imported under this scheme without payment of anti-dumping duty. This was relevant to its assessment of the possible impact on export-oriented pigment manufacturers.

However, the observation does not establish that every Advance Authorisation holder is automatically exempt. Eligibility depends on the relevant customs exemption notification, the terms of the authorisation and the particular import. Businesses intending to rely on the scheme should examine the applicable exemption conditions before claiming any relief.

Relevant DGFT compliance services may help businesses understand the authorisation process where it is applicable. A DGFT restricted-import licence should not be assumed necessary merely because anti-dumping duty applies.

When Will the Recommended Five-Year Duty Continuation Take Effect?

The latest DGTR findings and the existing customs notification deal with different stages of the regulatory process. The earlier duty had already been extended before DGTR completed the sunset review.

Regulatory Timeline

Has the Duty Already Been Extended?

The existing duty was extended through 13 January 2027 by the Ministry of Finance in July 2026. That is an operative extension. DGTR's October 2026 recommendation concerns a further five-year period and does not, by itself, give that period legal effect.

What Should Importers Follow Now?

Importers should refer to the legally operative customs notification, including its amendments and any subsequent changes. At the time of this review, a further Central Government notification implementing the October five-year recommendation was not independently identified. This should be rechecked before publication and whenever the applicable duty is assessed for an actual shipment.

What Are the Risks of Incorrect Anti-Dumping Duty Assessment?

Incorrectly applying an anti-dumping duty rate can create problems during customs clearance and may affect the business's import costs.

Several areas deserve attention.

1. Incorrect Product Classification

A covered product may be wrongly classified, or an excluded product may be treated as covered. The commercial name, chemical specifications and current tariff description should be examined together.

2. Applying the Wrong Producer Rate

Using a producer-specific rate without establishing the actual manufacturer and the relevant conditions may result in an incorrect assessment.

3. Missing Manufacturer Information

Where a prescribed invoice declaration is legally required, missing or inconsistent information may prevent the importer from supporting a claimed individual rate.

4. Using Old Tariff Codes

The April 2026 amendment changed certain tariff-item references in the original anti-dumping notification. Importers relying only on earlier classifications may overlook the updated references.

5. Assuming an Exemption Applies

Advance Authorisation or another trade authorisation should not be treated as automatic proof of exemption from anti-dumping duty. The applicable legal conditions must be verified.

6. Relying on an Outdated Duty Notification

A business may refer to the original 2021 notification without checking later amendments or the existing validity extension. This can lead to incorrect assumptions about the duty's legal status. The specific consequences of incorrect declarations or assessments depend on the applicable customs law and facts. No automatic penalty should be assumed solely from the DGTR findings.

What Should Importers and Chemical Manufacturers Do Next?

Businesses importing or using covered Arylides should review their existing arrangements against the applicable customs requirements.

The following checks may help.

Step 1: Identify the Exact Product

Start with the chemical being imported. Check whether it is AAA, AAMX, AAOA, AAOT or AAOCA, or whether it falls outside the defined scope. The product description should be supported by reliable specifications and manufacturer information.

Step 2: Verify the Current HS Classification

Review the tariff classification used for the shipment. Pay attention to the April 2026 changes affecting references to 2924 29 90. The tariff code and product scope should both be checked.

Step 3: Confirm the Legally Applicable Duty

Examine Notification No. 60/2021-Customs (ADD), its subsequent amendments and any later notification relevant to the shipment. Do not calculate a new five-year period from the DGTR findings alone.

Step 4: Check the Producer and Export Route

Confirm the actual manufacturer, country of origin and country of export. These details matter because the duty table contains producer-specific and country-specific conditions.

Step 5: Review the Commercial Invoice

Where a producer-specific rate is being claimed, check the prescribed documentary conditions of the applicable notification. The information should correctly identify the manufacturer and covered goods.

Step 6: Check Customs Valuation and Exchange-Rate Requirements

Review the assessable value, relevant freight and insurance components and applicable exchange-rate rules.

Step 7: Examine Applicable Exemption Conditions

Where imports are made under Advance Authorisation, verify whether the transaction meets the relevant exemption requirements.

Step 8: Review Procurement and Compliance Records

Consider whether supplier information, contracts, shipment documents and internal cost calculations are consistent. For businesses handling regular chemical imports, a periodic customs compliance review can help identify issues before they affect individual shipments.

These are practical recommendations, not a new application process introduced by the October findings.

How Corpseed Can Help With Import and Customs Compliance

Importing industrial chemicals into India requires businesses to understand the applicable trade policy, customs classification and documentation requirements. An anti-dumping duty adds another issue to check, particularly where rates differ by manufacturer or product coverage is narrowly defined. Corpseed offers import-related registration and compliance services that may be relevant to businesses operating in international trade.

Depending on the service required, Corpseed may assist in the following areas.

1. Import Compliance Services

Businesses may need guidance on the regulatory requirements relevant to their import activity, including registration and documentation matters. Import compliance services may be useful when a business needs to identify the applicable service or import-related approval requirements.

2. Import Export Code (IEC) Registration

Businesses undertaking import-export activities generally need an Importer Exporter Code, subject to the applicable exceptions. Corpseed provides IEC registration services for businesses requiring assistance with the registration process.

3. DGFT Licence Services

Some products require import authorisation under the applicable DGFT import policy. Where a chemical is classified as restricted, businesses may need to examine the appropriate licensing provisions. Corpseed provides DGFT licence services for relevant restricted or controlled goods. The Arylides anti-dumping findings do not, by themselves, establish that a DGFT restricted-import licence is required.

4. ICEGATE Registration Assistance

ICEGATE is India's electronic customs platform for filing and accessing relevant customs information and services. Corpseed offers ICEGATE registration assistance for eligible businesses.

5. Import Documentation and Compliance Support

Importers should also ensure that documentation relating to the product, producer and relevant shipment details is accurate. The necessary documents depend on the transaction and applicable requirements. Businesses seeking assistance with import registration, DGFT approvals or related documentation can contact Corpseed to discuss the services relevant to their operations.

Key Takeaways

DGTR has recommended continuing existing anti-dumping duties on five specified Arylides varieties imported from China for another five years. The recommended rates remain 24.79%, 26.64% and 44.90% of CIF value, subject to the applicable producer, origin and export conditions.

The authority based its recommendation on findings of continued dumping, injury to the domestic industry, pricing pressure and the likelihood of further injury if the existing measure expires. For importers, three points deserve particular attention: whether the product is covered, which producer-specific duty rate applies and which customs notification is legally operative.

The Ministry of Finance had already extended the existing duty until 13 January 2027, unless changed earlier. DGTR's separate recommendation for a further five years requires Central Government action. Businesses should therefore check the applicable customs notifications, current tariff codes and relevant documentary conditions before assessing duty liability.