Law Updates

Subject

Summary: Tea Board has given Darjeeling tea businesses a clear date to work towards: 17 September 2026. From that date, the online facility that allowed a Certificate of Origin , or COO, to be generated with factory invoices without sourcing data will no longer be available. Every future COO generated through the portal will have to include the required sourcing information. Tea Board communicated the change through a circular dated 24 August 2026. The change is relevant mainly to businesses operating within the Darjeeling Geographical Indication ecosystem. The circular is addressed to 87 recognised tea gardens of Darjeeling GI and 5 Mini Tea Factories operating within Darjeeling GI. This is not a new licence, registration or separate certification scheme. Nor does the circular say that factory invoices are being removed from the process. What is ending is the earlier option to generate the COO using factory invoices without the related sourcing data. For gardens, factories and export teams, that small difference in wording matters. Tea Board Circular at a Glance Particular Details Issuing Authority Tea Board Document Circular Date 24 August 2026 Reference LEGAL-MISCOCOMM/14/2026-Legal Cell Subject Online issuance of Certificate of Origin for export of Darjeeling tea Online COO system in force since 3 April 2023 New requirement applicable from 17 September 2026 Main change COO generation with factory invoices without sourcing data will be discontinued New requirement Future COOs must include requisite sourcing data Directly addressed entities 87 recognised Darjeeling GI tea gardens and 5 Mini Tea Factories New fee under this circular Not expressly specified Specific penalty under this circular Not expressly specified Detailed list of sourcing-data fields Not provided in the circular The practical takeaway is simple. Businesses that currently depend on the earlier factory-invoice-only route should not expect that facility to remain available after 17 September 2026. What Exactly Has Tea Board Changed? The change is narrower than it may first appear. Tea Board says that when the online system was introduced, the portal allowed COOs to be generated with factory invoices without requiring sourcing data. That arrangement was useful during the earlier stage of the portal. Tea Board now says the portal has stabilised and is running successfully. On that basis, the Board has decided to withdraw the earlier facility. From 17 September 2026: the online COO portal continues, Certificates of Origin will continue to be generated through that system, the earlier factory-invoice-without-sourcing-data option ends, sourcing information will have to form part of future COO generation. There is an important point here. The circular does not say that factory invoices have become invalid. It says that COOs can no longer be generated with factory invoices without sourcing data. That is a much more precise reading of the circular. How Was the Darjeeling Tea COO System Working Earlier? The online Certificate of Origin system is not new. According to Tea Board, online issuance of COOs for Darjeeling tea exports has been in force since 3 April 2023. The portal also supports Management Information System, or MIS, reporting for producers. The circular refers to information relating to green leaf plucked, garden invoices, total tea manufactured, country of export and the quantity of tea exported. During the initial period, the portal included a facility through which a COO could be generated with factory invoices even when sourcing data had not been provided. That flexibility is now being removed. Tea Board has not announced a replacement portal or a completely new certificate system. It is modifying the way an existing system is used. Old vs New Darjeeling Tea COO Requirement Area Business preparation From 17 September 2026 Online COO portal Already in use Continues Factory invoice Could support COO generation under the earlier facility without sourcing data Earlier no-sourcing-data facility ends Sourcing information Could be omitted under the facility described in the circular Requisite sourcing data must be included Certificate of Origin Generated online Continues to be generated online Business preparation Existing process could continue Records may need to be reviewed before COO generation For a business that already keeps complete source records and enters them into the system properly, the adjustment may be fairly manageable. The change is more likely to be felt by businesses where garden, factory and export records are maintained separately or where sourcing information is collected only when a shipment is almost ready. Got it. I’ll keep the bullet points, but make each point a proper sentence instead of short, poem-like lines. Who Is Directly Covered by the Circular? The Tea Board has clearly identified the recipients of the circular. It is specifically addressed to: 87 recognised tea gardens under the Darjeeling GI , which are directly covered by the circular. 5 Mini Tea Factories operating within the Darjeeling GI , which are also directly covered. This does not mean that the circular automatically applies to every tea garden, processor or factory operating across India. Its focus is specifically on Darjeeling GI tea. Exporters, traders, documentation teams and other businesses working with these gardens and factories may also experience operational implications because the Certificate of Origin forms part of the Darjeeling tea export process. However, they are not listed as the primary recipients of the circular in the same way as the recognised tea gardens and Mini Tea Factories. This distinction should be maintained when businesses assess whether the circular directly applies to them. The Three Dates Businesses Should Remember The circular contains three dates that should not be mixed up. Date What Happened 3 April 2023 Online issuance of COO for Darjeeling tea was already in force 24 August 2026 Tea Board issued the present circular 17 September 2026 COO generation with factory invoices without sourcing data will be discontinued The 24 August 2026 date is the date of the circular. The 17 September 2026 date is when the new operational position starts. Tea Board does not formally call the period between these dates a transition period. Even so, businesses have a short window in which they can check records, review the portal and make sure the people handling COO applications understand the change. What Does “Sourcing Data” Mean in This Circular? Tea Board says all future COOs must include the “requisite sourcing data.” The circular, however, does not provide a separate annexure or field-by-field list explaining exactly what must be entered under that expression. So the circular should not be used to create an imaginary checklist. For instance, it would not be accurate to say, solely on the basis of this document, that every COO applicant must upload a new declaration, a specific sourcing certificate, a particular register or some newly prescribed supporting document. Those requirements are not set out in the one-page circular. Businesses should instead check the current fields and instructions available on the Tea Board portal when preparing a COO. Where the portal or a later Tea Board communication gives a more detailed requirement, that official instruction should be followed. What Information Does the Portal Already Deal With? Tea Board's circular gives some useful context about the information available through the system. It says the portal allows producers to generate MIS reports covering matters such as: green leaf plucked, garden invoices, total tea manufactured, country of export, and quantity of tea exported. These entries show that the portal already deals with information stretching from production to export. That does not, however, prove that the five MIS categories are the complete list of sourcing-data fields that will be required for every future COO. MIS reporting and mandatory sourcing data may overlap, but the circular does not say they are identical. Businesses should not treat the two expressions as interchangeable unless Tea Board makes that clear through the portal or another official communication. Can a COO Still Be Generated Using Only a Factory Invoice? From 17 September 2026, businesses should not rely on the earlier facility that allowed a Certificate of Origin (COO) to be generated using only a factory invoice without providing sourcing details. Tea Board has expressly stated that this facility is being discontinued. However, this does not mean that the factory invoice will no longer be part of the process. The key change is that the factory invoice can no longer be treated as a substitute for the sourcing information required under the revised system. Businesses should therefore focus on maintaining the required source records before starting the COO process. In practice, this means: Maintain sourcing records: Keep clear records showing the source of the tea being used for export. Match the supporting documents: Make sure the sourcing information is consistent with the factory invoice and other export documents. Coordinate with the garden and factory: Relevant information should be collected before the COO application is prepared. Avoid last-minute documentation: Collecting source records only when the export documentation is being finalised can lead to delays and additional follow-up. A mismatch between the sourcing records, invoice and export documents could result in unnecessary coordination between the tea garden, factory and export team. Why Is Tea Board Making the Change Now? Tea Board says the portal has stabilised and is now running successfully. After reaching that stage, the Board decided to discontinue the facility that allowed COO generation without sourcing data. The circular does not provide a lengthy policy justification beyond this. It does not say that the change was introduced because of a particular fraud case, enforcement drive or quality incident. Such reasons should not be added without separate official evidence. At an operational level, though, the move places greater emphasis on linking the tea being exported with information about where it came from. That can support a more complete record trail, provided the underlying data is accurate. What Could This Mean for Tea Traceability? Darjeeling tea operates within a GI-linked supply chain, so the connection between the source of the tea and the final export record is commercially and administratively important. Under the revised COO arrangement, sourcing information moves closer to the centre of the certification process. Instead of treating the COO as something handled only when the export documents are ready, businesses may have to look further back in the chain: Where did the tea come from? Do the garden records support the factory records? Does the information available to the export team match the records already generated through the portal? The circular does not say that sourcing data will solve every traceability problem. Nor does it promise stronger enforcement or automatic verification. Still, requiring sourcing information at the COO stage may create a better link between garden-level information, production records and the final export documentation. What Does the Circular Mean for Recognised Darjeeling Tea Gardens? For the 87 recognised Darjeeling GI tea gardens named in the circular, the most practical issue is likely to be record readiness. If sourcing information is required before a future COO can be generated, garden-level records may need to be available earlier and in a form that matches downstream records. That may mean taking a closer look at: source information already maintained internally, garden invoices and related records, quantities recorded at different stages, information shared with factories, Information eventually used by the export documentation team. The circular itself does not create this as a separate documentary checklist. These are sensible internal checks that can reduce confusion when the revised portal requirement starts. What Does It Mean for Mini Tea Factories? The circular separately mentions 5 Mini Tea Factories operating within the Darjeeling GI. For these smaller factories, the main challenge may not be understanding the requirement, but bringing information from different sources into one consistent record. Factory Records: Factory-related information may be maintained separately from sourcing records and export documentation. Sourcing Information: The required details may need to be obtained from the relevant tea gardens or other sources. Document Consistency: Information across invoices, sourcing records and export documents should be consistent. Record Management: Businesses with an established record trail may need to make only limited changes to their existing process. Early Review: Where information is fragmented, reviewing the documentation flow before 17 September 2026 can help identify gaps before the revised COO process begins. For Mini Tea Factories, checking how information moves between the factory, sourcing parties and export team before the effective date may be more useful than waiting until the first COO application under the revised requirement. What Does It Mean for Darjeeling Tea Exporters? The circular is directly addressed to recognised tea gardens and Mini Tea Factories, but exporters dealing with Darjeeling tea should also pay attention because the change affects the Certificate of Origin used in the export process. The main practical change for exporters is the timing of documentation. Under the earlier facility, an exporter could rely on a factory invoice without providing the sourcing information. That route will no longer be available after 17 September 2026. For export teams, this may mean: Collecting Sourcing Information Earlier: Exporters may need to obtain the relevant sourcing details before beginning the COO process. Checking Documents in Advance: Sourcing information should be reviewed against the factory invoice and other export documents. Coordinating with Suppliers: Export teams may need to communicate with the concerned tea garden or factory before submitting the COO application. Planning Documentation: Waiting until the final stage of export documentation could create avoidable delays if required sourcing information is missing. This does not mean that Tea Board has introduced a completely new export licence. The change relates to one part of the existing export-documentation process, where sourcing information can no longer be omitted by relying on the facility that is being withdrawn. Impact on Compliance and Documentation Teams The main change for compliance and documentation teams will likely be better coordination. If sourcing details are missing from the start, the compliance team may not be able to fix the problem when the COO is being prepared. The required information needs to be recorded and shared earlier. Similarly, an export documentation team may have the invoice ready but still need sourcing information before the COO can move forward under the revised arrangement. Businesses may therefore benefit from deciding: Who will be responsible for checking the sourcing data? At what stage will the information be reviewed? Which internal record will be used as the main reference? How will any differences in the records be corrected? who checks the portal before final submission. These are internal control measures. They are not presented in the circular as a statutory step-by-step procedure. Does Tea Board Introduce a New Fee Through This Circular? No new fee is expressly introduced in the circular. The document deals with the information required for future COO generation and does not specify any fresh government charge, sourcing-data fee or additional deposit. Businesses should therefore avoid assuming that a new financial requirement has been introduced simply because the documentation process is changing. There may be other fees associated with services or compliance under separate frameworks, but those should not be presented as part of this circular unless they are separately verified. Is There a New Penalty for Not Providing Sourcing Data? The circular itself does not state a new monetary penalty or specific statutory punishment for failing to provide sourcing data. It does not set out a fine, announce prosecution or mention blacklisting, cancellation or seizure as consequences of the change. The circular only says that the facility allowing businesses to generate a COO using a factory invoice without sourcing data will end from 17 September 2026. In practical terms, businesses will no longer be able to use this earlier route once the facility is withdrawn. No new financial penalty is stated in the circular. Is the Darjeeling Tea COO Portal Being Replaced? No such change is announced in the circular. Tea Board refers to the existing portal as having stabilised and running successfully, and the withdrawal of the earlier facility is being introduced on that basis. Businesses should therefore not interpret the circular as an instruction to migrate to a new system. The existing portal remains central to the COO process. The change concerns the information required for future COO generation, particularly the sourcing information that could previously be omitted when businesses used the facility for generating a COO with a factory invoice alone. What Are the Likely Benefits of Requiring Sourcing Data? The circular itself does not publish a formal list of benefits. Still, there are some reasonable business and compliance advantages that may follow. Better Connection between Source and Export Records A COO concerns origin. Requiring sourcing information may make it easier to connect the export document with the records showing where the tea came from. More Disciplined Record-keeping If sourcing information has to be available at the COO stage, businesses have a stronger reason to keep source records current rather than reconstructing them later. Better Coordination between Gardens and Factories Where the source, factory and exporter are different parties, the requirement may encourage earlier exchange of information. Fewer Gaps in the Record Chain The earlier facility allowed a COO to be generated without sourcing data. Removing that option means incomplete source information is less likely to remain outside the COO process. These are likely practical benefits, not guaranteed outcomes. The actual value will depend on how accurately information is maintained and how clearly the portal captures it. Where Could Businesses Face Difficulty? For a well-organised garden or factory, the new rule may mainly involve a change in routine. For another business, it could expose a much bigger record-keeping problem. Information may sit with different people The person preparing a COO may not be the same person who maintains garden or sourcing records. That creates dependency on internal communication. Old records may not match Names, quantities, invoice references or other details may have been recorded differently at different stages. Any mismatch can take time to resolve. Smaller businesses may depend heavily on manual records Mini Tea Factories and smaller operators may not have fully integrated systems. That can make the sourcing-data exercise more labour-intensive. Staff may need to learn revised portal requirements Even a modest portal change can create confusion when staff are used to following the same process for several years. Tea Board has not quantified any implementation cost in this circular. It would therefore be wrong to attach an estimated financial burden without evidence. Is This a Right Decision or an Additional Burden? It can be both, depending on the business. For Tea Board, requiring sourcing information creates a stronger link between the origin record and the Certificate of Origin process. For businesses, the same requirement can mean more work before a COO is generated. Area Possible Benefit Possible Burden Source traceability Better connection between tea source and export record More sourcing information must be ready Record quality Encourages cleaner records Existing inconsistencies may need correction Garden-factory coordination Can improve information flow More follow-up between parties Export documentation Makes origin information part of the process earlier Export team may depend on upstream data Mini Tea Factories Can improve record discipline Manual processes may require more effort Long-term compliance Can improve record discipline Ongoing maintenance becomes more important Implementation timing Effective date is clearly stated Businesses have limited time after the circular What is the practical view? The change makes sense from a record-traceability perspective because the Certificate of Origin is being linked more closely with the information showing where the tea came from. The concern is not really the idea of sourcing data. It is how clearly the requirement is implemented. The circular itself does not provide a complete field-by-field definition of “requisite sourcing data”. Businesses will therefore depend on the portal and any Tea Board instructions for the operational details. For a garden or factory that already keeps its records organised, this may be a fairly small adjustment. For a business that still depends on scattered spreadsheets, manual files or last-minute coordination, the change may feel much heavier. What Should Businesses Do Before 17 September 2026? The best preparation is fairly practical. First, identify who handles the COO process. Some businesses may have this sitting with an export executive, while others may involve the factory or compliance team. Then review existing sourcing records. The aim is not to invent new paperwork. It is to see whether the information already available can support the revised portal requirement. Compare the source, factory and export-side records. If there are obvious differences, investigate them now. Check the live Tea Board portal. The circular does not provide the full sourcing-data field list, so the actual portal instructions matter. Speak to the people who maintain upstream information. The COO team should know where the sourcing information comes from and whom to approach if something is missing. Do not wait for 17 September. The first application under the revised requirement is not the best time to discover that information is incomplete. Watch for further Tea Board communication. A later notice or portal update may give additional operational details. Compliance Risks Businesses Should Avoid The easiest mistake would be to read too much, or too little, into the circular. Businesses should not assume that the existing process will continue unchanged simply because the portal itself is still running. The no-sourcing-data facility will end from 17 September 2026, so the earlier route will no longer be available. At the same time, businesses should avoid treating every MIS item mentioned in the circular as an automatically mandatory COO field. Tea Board has not stated that every such item must be submitted as part of the COO process. Similarly, businesses should not create large internal document lists without a clear basis in the circular or the portal. The practical approach is to work from the official requirements, maintain consistent records and identify documentation gaps before the COO reaches the final stage. Waiting until an export is ready to check sourcing records could create unnecessary delays and follow-up. What Still Needs to Be Checked Through Tea Board or the Portal? The circular establishes the change, but it does not explain every operational detail of how the revised process will work. Businesses may therefore need to verify the following through the Tea Board or the portal: Sourcing-data Fields: The exact sourcing-related fields that will be available for entry on the portal. Data Format: The format or structure in which the required information must be provided. Supporting Documents: Whether any supporting file or document must accompany the sourcing information. Corrections: How businesses can correct or update information after it has been entered. Portal Workflow: Whether any revised portal workflow will be introduced before 17 September 2026. Further Instructions: Whether Tea Board issues an additional circular, advisory or user instruction explaining the revised process. These are areas that may require verification. They should not be presented as mandatory conditions unless Tea Board officially specifies them. A Better Internal Process for COO Readiness The change gives businesses a practical reason to review how information moves from the source of the tea to the final export record. Instead of checking everything only when a COO is required, businesses can build basic checks into their regular documentation process. Garden and factory records can be reviewed periodically so that sourcing and production information remains consistent. Export teams can also identify in advance who is responsible for providing the relevant sourcing information. If differences are found between records, they can be corrected before the export documentation reaches the final stage. For businesses handling multiple consignments, it can help to review the required information before starting the COO process. There is no need to create a complicated compliance system just for this change. Clear responsibilities and properly maintained records can make the process easier to manage. Business and Regulatory Perspective From Tea Board's perspective, the change brings sourcing information more firmly into the COO process. From the business side, the level of disruption will largely depend on how well existing records are maintained and connected. Recognised Tea Gardens: Businesses that already maintain clear sourcing and production records may see relatively little disruption. Mini Tea Factories: Factories receiving information from multiple sources may need stronger coordination to keep records consistent. Exporters: Export teams that usually become involved only at the final stage may need to obtain origin-related information earlier in the process. The most meaningful day-to-day change is therefore the timing of documentation. The COO should not be treated only as a final export document. The information supporting it may need to be collected, checked and maintained much earlier in the supply chain. How Can Corpseed Help with Export Compliance The circular changes an important part of the COO process, so businesses may need help understanding what needs to be updated in their existing documentation and export workflow.  Corpseed can support businesses that need structured export compliance consulting around the Darjeeling tea COO process. Support may include: Applicability Review: Assessing whether the Tea Board circular is relevant to the business's Darjeeling tea operations. COO Requirement Interpretation: Explaining the sourcing-data change in plain language and separating the actual requirement from assumptions. Sourcing-data Readiness Review: Checking whether existing business records are organised well enough for the revised COO process. Export Documentation Support: Reviewing relevant source, factory and export-side records for consistency. Compliance Gap Assessment: Identifying missing information or weak internal controls before they affect the documentation process. Record Consistency Review: Checking whether garden, factory and export information tells the same story. Portal Requirement Review: Helping businesses understand current official Tea Board instructions where the portal contains operational details not set out in the circular. Ongoing Compliance Support: Tracking relevant Tea Board changes and helping internal teams respond when the process is updated. The role of an export compliance consultant is not to issue the Certificate of Origin or guarantee Tea Board approval. Tea Board remains the competent authority. Professional support is useful where a business needs to understand what the circular actually requires, organise its records and avoid adding unnecessary steps that are not part of the official requirement. Darjeeling tea gardens, Mini Tea Factories and exporters that need help reviewing their sourcing records or COO readiness can consider Corpseed's export compliance consulting and export documentation support before the revised requirement takes effect. Key Takeaways Tea Board's 24 August 2026 circular changes one specific part of the Darjeeling tea Certificate of Origin process. The online COO system itself has been in force since 3 April 2023. What changes from 17 September 2026 is the earlier facility that allowed a COO to be generated with factory invoices without sourcing data. Future COOs must include the requisite sourcing information. The circular directly addresses 87 recognised Darjeeling GI tea gardens and 5 Mini Tea Factories. Businesses should also remember what the circular does not do. It does not specify a new fee, create a new licence or registration, prescribe a fresh monetary penalty, or provide a complete field-by-field list of sourcing data. Therefore, businesses should review their existing records, check the Tea Board portal and sort out any missing information before 17 September 2026. It is better to work with the requirements that Tea Board has actually stated than to assume that additional requirements will apply.

Subject

Summary: The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has revised the notified boundary of the multi-product Special Economic Zone developed by Mangalore SEZ Limited near Mangalore in Karnataka. Through Notification S.O. 4512(E), the Central Government has added 27.0093 hectares to the SEZ and de-notified 1.1558 hectares from it. This Mangalore SEZ area revision changes the notified geographical boundary of the existing Special Economic Zone. After both adjustments, the notified area of Mangalore SEZ increases from 570.7080 hectares to 596.5615 hectares. The additional land falls in Permude and Bajpe villages, while the de-notified parcels are located in 62 Thokur village in Dakshin Kannada district. The notification is therefore relevant to businesses tracking the Mangalore SEZ land addition, Mangalore SEZ de-notification, and the current Mangalore SEZ total area. The Mangalore Special Economic Zone notification is primarily a geographical and administrative change to the SEZ boundary. The notification does not introduce a new registration procedure, compliance deadline, fee, testing requirement or penalty for SEZ units. Its practical importance lies in determining which identified land parcels form part of the notified SEZ after the revision. Mangalore SEZ Notification at a Glance Particular Verified details Issuing authority Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, SEZ Division, Government of India Document type Gazette notification concerning addition and partial de-notification of SEZ land Notification number S.O. 4512(E) Gazette number 4332, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) File number F. No. F.2/120/2006-SEZ Notification date 12 June 2026 Date shown on the Gazette issue 14 August 2026 Electronic Gazette identifier CG-DL-E-17082026-275513 Effective date A separate commencement or effective date is not expressly specified Governing law Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 SEZ developer M/s Mangalore SEZ Limited Type of SEZ Multi-product Special Economic Zone Location Baikampady, near Mangalore, Dakshin Kannada district, Karnataka Area before the 2026 revision 570.7080 hectares Area added 27.0093 hectares Area de-notified 1.1558 hectares Net increase 25.8535 hectares Revised total area 596.5615 hectares Compliance deadline Not expressly specified Nature of the measure Revision of the notified geographical area of an existing SEZ The notification is dated 12 June 2026, but the Gazette shows 14 August 2026. The online Gazette record and digital signature show 17 August 2026. So, these dates should be recorded separately. For businesses searching for the SEZ notification Karnataka authorities have issued in relation to Mangalore, S.O. 4512(E) is the relevant 2026 boundary revision notification. Regulatory Framework for the Boundary Revision The Mangalore SEZ notification has been issued under section 4(1) of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, read with rule 8 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. In this sense, the notification forms part of the regulatory framework under the Special Economic Zones Act 2005 notification mechanism for identifying and modifying notified SEZ areas. Section 3 of the SEZ Act provides the framework through which a person or government may propose the establishment of an SEZ. After the proposal and letter-of-approval process, section 4(1) allows the Central Government to notify a specifically identified area as an SEZ when the prescribed conditions are satisfied. The second proviso to section 4(1) is particularly relevant here. It permits the Central Government, after an SEZ has been notified, to notify additional land for inclusion in that SEZ when it considers the addition appropriate. Rule 8 deals with notification of the identified area after the required details have been submitted and the applicable conditions have been accepted. The present notification uses that framework to change the geographical composition of an existing SEZ. It does not establish a completely new SEZ. It adds specified parcels to the existing Mangalore SEZ and removes other specified parcels from its notified area. History of Area Changes in Mangalore SEZ The 2026 notification also records the earlier notifications through which the area of Mangalore SEZ changed over time. Stage Notification Date Area added (hectares) Area de-notified (hectares) Resulting total (hectares) 1 S.O. 1885(E) 6 November 2007 587.9210 -- 587.9210 2 S.O. 1477(E) 28 June 2011 55.7760 22.9570 620.7400 3 S.O. 1909(E) 18 August 2011 4.0460 -- 624.7860 4 S.O. 2298(E) 8 September 2014 35.0163 4.2980 655.5043 5 S.O. 3719(E) 13 November 2017 -- 4.8722 650.6321 6 S.O. 544(E) 9 February 2022 -- 79.9241 570.7080 7 S.O. 4512(E) 12 June 2026 27.0093 1.1558 596.5615 This history matters because the new total cannot be understood by looking only at the original 2007 notification. The notified boundary has expanded and contracted several times. For current land-status work, stakeholders should use the latest notification together with the earlier instruments and the relevant official maps or demarcation records. The history also explains why the Mangalore SEZ area after the 2026 notification is 596.5615 hectares rather than the original notified area. The latest notification must be read as the current boundary revision to the existing SEZ. What Has Changed under S.O. 4512(E)? The 2026 notification makes two connected changes: It adds 27.0093 hectares situated in Permude and Bajpe villages to the notified SEZ. It de-notifies 1.1558 hectares situated in 62 Thokur village from the SEZ. The combined effect is a net increase of 25.8535 hectares. Therefore, in response to how much land has been added to Mangalore SEZ, the notified addition is 27.0093 hectares. After accounting for the land removed from the notified area, the net increase is 25.8535 hectares. Change Area Location Practical meaning Additional land notified 27.0093 hectares Permude and Bajpe The listed survey parcels are added to the notified SEZ area Land de-notified 1.1558 hectares 62 Thokur The listed survey parcels are removed from the notified SEZ area Net boundary increase 25.8535 hectares Mangalore SEZ The overall notified area becomes larger Revised total 596.5615 hectares Multi-product Mangalore SEZ This is the resultant area stated in the notification The notification does not explain the intended use of each newly included parcel. It also does not state whether the added land will be classified as a processing area, trading or warehousing area, or a non-processing area. Those matters may depend on separate demarcation, approval, or authorised-operation records. Revised Mangalore SEZ Area Calculation The area calculation can be reconciled as follows: Calculation component Area in hectares Total notified area before the 2026 notification 570.7080 Add: newly notified land 27.0093 Subtotal 597.7173 Less: de-notified land 1.1558 Correct resultant area 596.5615 The arithmetic confirms the final area of 596.5615 hectares stated in the notification. However, the Gazette contains a numerical inconsistency in its final English calculation line. This is discussed separately under “Points Requiring Clarification.” Village-Wise Summary of the Boundary Change Village Nature of change Number of listed entries Total area in hectares Permude Land added to the SEZ 17 13.3965 Bajpe Land added to the SEZ 23 13.6128 Total addition   40 27.0093 62 Thokur Land de-notified from the SEZ 7 1.1558 The Permude and Bajpe totals have been calculated from the individual entries printed in the Gazette. Together, they reconcile exactly with the notified addition of 27.0093 hectares. The village-wise schedule is particularly relevant when reviewing the Permude and Bajpe SEZ land included through the 2026 boundary revision and the parcels affected by the 62 Thokur SEZ de-notification. Survey-Wise Land Added in Permude and Bajpe The notification provides a detailed survey-wise list of the land parcels added to the Mangalore SEZ. The following tables show the exact survey numbers and corresponding areas notified in Permude and Bajpe, making it easier for businesses and landholders to verify the affected parcels. Land added in Permude S. No. Survey number Area in hectares 1 42/1 Part 0.1710 2 44/1 Part 0.1530 3 44/2 Part 0.8140 4 45/1 1.0120 5 45/2 2.8770 6 46/3 Part 2.1735 7 46/4 0.5990 8 46/5 0.3400 9 46/6 0.1380 10 46/7 Part 0.9370 11 46/8 Part 0.1110 12 46/15 Part 0.0840 13 46/16 Part 0.0490 14 196/2 Part 0.3440 15 196/3 0.4370 16 199/1 2.8530 17 199/2 0.3040 Total - Permude 13.3965 Land added in Bajpe S. No. Survey number Area in hectares 1 69/1 0.8788 2 69/2A 0.6620 3 69/2B 0.2905 4 70/1 0.5500 5 70/2 0.1740 6 70/3 0.0850 7 70/3 0.0809 8 70/4 0.0648 9 70/5 0.4330 10 70/6 0.0607 11 70/7 0.0971 12 70/8A 0.3292 13 70/8B 0.0607 14 70/9 0.2384 15 70/11 0.5059 16 70/12 0.0648 17 153/1 2.9624 18 153/2 0.2023 19 159/1 1.2869 20 159/2 0.9834 21 159/3 0.1052 22 163/1 1.6510 23 163/2 1.8458 Total - Bajpe 13.6128 Survey number 70/3 appears twice in the Gazette with two different areas: 0.0850 hectare and 0.0809 hectare. Both rows have been retained exactly as separate notified entries. They should not be merged or treated as a single parcel without an official cadastral or survey-level verification. Businesses specifically asking which survey numbers were added to Mangalore SEZ should refer to the complete survey-wise schedule above rather than relying only on the village-wise total. Survey-Wise Land De-notified in 62 Thokur S. No. Survey number Area in hectares 1 59/13B 0.0605 2 59/14B 0.0964 3 59/15 0.0562 4 59/19B 0.1537 5 61/3A1B 0.2750 6 62/15 P 0.1174 7 63/13 P 0.3966 Total 1.1558 For the listed parcels, de-notification means that they are removed from the notified geographical area of the SEZ under this notification. The Gazette does not, by itself, explain the resulting land use, ownership position, compensation, local planning treatment, or other approvals applicable to those parcels after de-notification. Those issues require separate verification from the relevant land, planning, state, local, and SEZ records. Geographical Scope and Applicability The notification is narrow in scope. It applies to the specified survey parcels connected with the multi-product Mangalore SEZ near Baikampady in Dakshin Kannada district, Karnataka. It is directly relevant to: Mangalore SEZ Limited as the developer, existing, or proposed units whose sites, access, utilities, or projects may relate to the listed parcels, investors and infrastructure providers conducting due diligence within the SEZ, landowners, occupiers, and counterparties dealing with the identified survey numbers, surveyors, lawyers, consultants, lenders, and project teams reviewing land status, and the Development Commissioner and other authorities responsible for SEZ administration and demarcation. The notification does not state that every business operating in or around Mangalore must take a new compliance step. Relevance depends mainly on whether a business, project, agreement, approval, or land record is connected with the affected parcels or the revised SEZ boundary. What the Revision Means for Key Stakeholders The notification identifies the exact survey numbers and land areas added to the Mangalore SEZ across Permude and Bajpe villages. Mangalore SEZ Limited For the developer, the most immediate issue is consistency across official boundary records. The Gazette schedule, survey records, approved plans, infrastructure layouts, land documents, internal maps and stakeholder communications should all refer to the same revised area. The notification itself does not prescribe a new filing deadline. As a practical control, however, the developer should confirm whether any consequential update is required before the Board of Approval, Development Commissioner, Specified Officer, customs authorities, state authorities or other relevant bodies. Existing SEZ units The notification does not change an existing unit’s letter of approval, authorised operations, validity, performance requirements or regular SEZ compliance. Still, units should check whether their premises, utilities, access roads, leases, expansion plans, or common facilities are linked to any of the affected survey parcels. If a unit has no connection with the revised parcels, there may be little immediate impact on its operations. Proposed units and investors For proposed units and investors, the revised boundary should be checked before finalising a site or completing legal due diligence. Simply describing a property as being “near the SEZ” is not enough. The exact survey number and parcel should be checked against the latest notified schedule and available demarcation records. The notification only confirms which listed parcels have been added to or removed from the SEZ. It does not replace title checks, encumbrance searches, land-use checks, environmental due diligence, access reviews or other approvals needed for a project. Landowners, occupiers, and contracting parties Anyone dealing with the affected land should first verify the survey number and exact area. This is particularly important where the survey number has a “Part,” “A,” “B” or “P” reference or where the same survey number appears more than once. The Gazette does not settle questions about ownership, possession, compensation, contracts, or mutation. These matters should be checked against the relevant land and revenue records before entering into a transaction. Lenders and due-diligence teams Banks, investors, legal advisers, and transaction teams should include Notification S.O. 4512(E) in their land and project checks. If any security, valuation, lease, acquisition or project document relates to the affected land, its details should be compared with the revised SEZ boundary. This can help avoid discrepancies between the notified area and the information used in financing, valuation or transaction documents. Points Requiring Clarification in the Gazette The notification contains several drafting or presentation issues that deserve careful treatment. 1. Incorrect figure in the final English formula The English table states that the de-notified area totals 1.1558 hectares. The operative text also uses 1.1558 hectares. However, the final calculation line prints: 570.7080 + 27.0093 - 1.558 That printed expression does not produce 596.5615 hectares. If 1.558 hectares were deducted, the result would be 596.1593 hectares. The stated final total of 596.5615 hectares is obtained only by deducting 1.1558 hectares: 570.7080 + 27.0093 - 1.1558 = 596.5615 The de-notified parcels add up to 1.1558 hectares. So, the 1.558 figure in the final calculation appears to be a typo. Businesses should still use the figure as published in the Gazette and, if it affects a transaction, boundary check, or filing, confirm the correct figure with the concerned authority. 2. De-notification table uses the wrong column label The final column of the English “Table for De-notification Area” is labelled “Area to be notified (in Hectares).” Because the table concerns parcels being removed from the SEZ, the label appears inconsistent with the table’s subject and operative text. The individual figures and the total are still understandable in context, but the heading should be read cautiously and reproduced accurately when cited. 3. Survey number 70/3 appears twice The additional-area table lists Bajpe survey number 70/3 in two consecutive rows, with areas of 0.0850 hectare and 0.0809 hectare. The Gazette does not provide a subdivision, qualifier, or explanation distinguishing the two entries. The duplication may represent two separate portions, but that cannot be confirmed from the text alone. Parcel-level reliance should therefore be supported by an official survey schedule, map, or clarification. 4. Different issue, Gazette, and electronic-publication dates The notification is dated 12 June 2026. The Gazette issue is dated 14 August 2026, while the electronic identifier and digital-signature information point to 17 August 2026. No separate effective-date clause is printed. These dates should be recorded separately. If a legal or commercial question depends on the exact date from which the revised boundary must be treated as operative, specific advice or authority confirmation may be appropriate. What Affected Businesses Should Do Next The notification does not set any general compliance deadline. But if your business has any connection with the listed land, it is worth checking the details before making any changes to your plans or documents. Check the survey details: If your project, lease, property, access route or facility is on the affected land, compare the survey number and area with the details given in the notification. Update boundary records:  Ensure that internal maps, land schedules, due-diligence reports, presentations, and approval documents do not continue to show the earlier total of 570.7080 hectares as the current SEZ area. Keep the area figures clear: The listed de-notified parcels total 1.1558 hectares, even though the final calculation in the notification shows a different figure. Keep this discrepancy on record when reviewing the document. Do not merge duplicate entries automatically: keep both 70/3 rows separate until an official map or clarification identifies their precise parcel boundaries. Review connected approvals and contracts:  See if the boundary change has any effect on existing leases, land allotments, infrastructure or utility agreements, financing documents, or planned expansion. Check if any updates are needed:  If the affected land is relevant to the project, confirm with the Development Commissioner or SEZ authorities whether any maps, approvals, demarcation records, or other documents need to be changed. Separate requirements from precautions: These are practical steps for businesses to consider. The notification itself does not set out this checklist or mention any deadline for completing these actions. Benefits and Practical Challenges The revised boundary brings some practical opportunities for the SEZ, but businesses may also face challenges while updating land and project records. Potential benefits The net increase of 25.8535 hectares may support additional land availability, infrastructure planning, project development or future allocation within the SEZ. These are possible business implications, not outcomes guaranteed by the notification. The survey-wise schedule also creates a formal public record of the parcels included and removed. That can improve boundary clarity when it is read together with authoritative maps and land records. Practical challenges One of the main issues could be getting all records to show the same boundary. Some businesses may still have maps, or documents showing the earlier 570.7080-hectare area. The incorrect figure in the final calculation and the two 70/3 entries could also confuse when checking individual parcels. It is better not to rely only on the total area. The survey number, village, land area, maps and land records should all be checked against each other. How Corpseed Can Help SEZ boundary changes can affect land due diligence, project documentation, approvals, and stakeholder coordination even when the Gazette does not impose a direct filing deadline. Corpseed can assist businesses in understanding the notification and identifying the practical work required for their specific project. Relevant support may include: SEZ notification and applicability assessment, survey schedule and regulatory-document review, support in reconciling land details with project and approval records, assistance with SEZ-related applications and documentation where separately required, review of developer, unit, and authorised-operation documentation, regulatory gap assessment for proposed SEZ projects or expansions, coordination support for clarifications from relevant authorities, and ongoing SEZ compliance consultancy for developers and units. The appropriate scope depends on the business, parcel, approval status, and proposed activity. Corpseed does not treat the Gazette notification alone as a substitute for land-title, cadastral, environmental, tax, customs, or project-specific legal review. Businesses connected with the affected survey parcels can seek a document-specific assessment before changing plans, agreements, applications or investment decisions. Key Takeaways Notification S.O. 4512(E) revises the geographical boundary of the multi-product Mangalore SEZ. It adds land in Permude and Bajpe, removes specified land in 62 Thokur and increases the total notified area from 570.7080 hectares to 596.5615 hectares. The notified addition is 27.0093 hectares. The de-notified area is 1.1558 hectares. The net increase is 25.8535 hectares. The revised SEZ area is 596.5615 hectares. The notification creates no express compliance deadline for businesses. Parcel-level decisions should be based on exact survey details and official demarcation records. The final English formula contains an apparent typographical error, although the itemised figures and final total reconcile. Survey number 70/3 appears twice and should not be consolidated without official verification. The Mangalore SEZ area after the 2026 notification is therefore 596.5615 hectares. The Mangalore SEZ land addition covers identified parcels in Permude and Bajpe. The Mangalore SEZ de-notification covers seven identified parcels in 62 Thokur. Stakeholders requiring help with the revised boundary can consider professional SEZ compliance consultancy based on their specific land, project, and approval requirements.

Subject

Summary: The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has issued a new public notice on 29th October 2025, changing the procedure for Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) allocation of gold imports under the India–UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). As per the new amendment, applicants must now have Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) registration for hallmarking and GST registration to qualify for importing gold under HS Code 7108.  The earlier rule only stated that the import of Gold Dore under TRQ was not allowed. The updated rule adds mandatory BIS and GST requirements to ensure quality and tax compliance. DGFT has also introduced a competitive online bidding or tender system for TRQ allocation to make the process more transparent and efficient.  This change aims to improve the management of gold import quotas under the India–UAE CEPA framework. Eligible applicants for FY 2025–26 can apply online through the DGFT Import Management System on its official website. Details about the application timeline and bidding process will be issued every year through a Trade Notice. This step strengthens India’s gold import policy, ensures fair allocation, and supports trusted trade relations between India and the UAE under the CEPA agreement.

Subject

Summary: On 11 August 2025, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, issued notification imposing new port restrictions on select jute products imported from Bangladesh. As per the amendment to ITC (HS) 2022 Schedule 1 (Import Policy), imports of bleached and unbleached woven jute fabrics, twine, cordage, ropes, cables, and jute sacks from Bangladesh will no longer be allowed via land ports on the India-Bangladesh border. These items, under HS Codes 531090, 560890, 560790, and 630510, can now only enter India through the Nhava Sheva Seaport. The measure, effective immediately, follows earlier DGFT notifications issued in May and June 2025, and aims to regulate import channels while keeping other trade policy provisions unchanged. This step affects India-Bangladesh trade in the jute sector significantly.

Subject

Summary: On July 15, 2025, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, issued a new order to boost food safety and regulate poultry farming. This amendment bans the use of antimicrobial medicines to promote growth or increase yield in poultry birds. It also prohibits several antibiotics, antivirals, and antiprotozoals at any stage of poultry farming, meat production, and processing. The banned substances include carbapenems, glycopeptides, oxazolidinones, cephalosporins with beta-lactamase inhibitors, oseltamivir, favipiravir, molnupiravir, and nitazoxanide. The goal is to stop the misuse of critical drugs in poultry farms and prevent antimicrobial resistance. These rules support safe poultry farming, ensure clean poultry meat, and improve the quality of poultry exports. The move aligns India’s poultry sector with international food safety standards. By enforcing these changes, the government strengthens public health protection and enhances the global reputation of Indian poultry products.