Law Updates

Subject

Summary: The Drugs (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2026, have been notified by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. These rules modify Rule 89 of the Drugs Rules, 1945. The rule came into force on 7 August 2026. According to the Drugs Rule 89 Amendment 2026, the manufacturing licenses for ten forms will be included in the list of acceptable manufacturing license forms for drugs produced solely for examinations or tests. Previously, Forms 25 and 28 were the only forms listed under Rule 89. These include license forms for loan purposes, Schedule X, vaccines, sera, LVP, recombinant DNA substances, blood products, and umbilical cord blood stem cells. This does not mean that Form 29 has been removed. A business may still need Form 29 if its existing manufacturing license does not cover the drug concerned. The exact words "in respect of such drugs" remain central to the rule. Manufacturers should therefore check the license form, approved products, site, and proposed activity before starting a test batch. The Regulatory Framework Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is the primary law governing drug regulation in India. The notification states that the Central Government used the rule-making powers given by sections 12 and 33 of the Act. The final rules were made after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board. The Board gives technical advice to the Central and State Governments on matters arising from the administration of the Act. Drugs Rules, 1945 These procedures are explained in the Drugs Rules, 1945. Rule 89 is found in Part VIII of the said rules entitled "Manufacture for Examination, Test or Analysis." Part VIII deals with small quantities made for limited technical purposes. Rules 87 and 88 cover labels. Rule 89 decides when Form 29 is needed. Rules 90 to 93 cover its application, duration, conditions, and cancellation. Meaning of Form 29 Form 29 is a license to produce particular drugs for examination, testing, or analysis purposes. Form 29 is not a general manufacturing permit. The manufactured drugs can be used only for this particular purpose. Under Rule 90, an application for Form 29 is made in Form 30 to the State Licensing Authority. It must be made or countersigned by the head of the institution or a director of the firm or company. The stated fee is Rs. 250. Rule 91 states that Form 29 normally remains in force for three years from its date of issue unless canceled sooner. It may then be renewed for one year at a time. These are existing provisions that were not amended. Background of the Regulatory Development Earlier Position Under Rule 89 Before this amendment, a person had to obtain Form 29 for test manufacture if the person did not hold Form 25 or Form 28 in respect of that drug. Other forms for loan licenses and special products were not expressly named, creating possible uncertainty. Draft Notification and Public Consultation The draft amendment was published on 21 April 2026, and it became available on 22 April 2026. Thirty days were allotted for objections and suggestions. In the last notification, the comments were acknowledged to be considered. Final Notification The final Drugs (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2026, were notified on 6 August and published on 7 August 2026. They came into force on publication. The final text includes Form 28E. The earlier draft text available through the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization did not appear to include Form 28E in its operative list. This is a material point when comparing the draft with the final notification. Businesses must follow the final notified text. What Has Changed? Old and New Position Compliance area Earlier position New position from 7 August 2026 Business meaning License forms named in Rule 89 Form 25 and Form 28 Ten manufacturing license forms More license categories are expressly recognized Loan licenses Not expressly named Forms 25A, 28A, and 28DA are named Loan-licensees receive clearer treatment Schedule X categories Limited express coverage Forms 25F and 28B are named Schedule X manufacturers are expressly addressed Vaccines and specialized biological products Form 28D not named Forms 28D and 28DA are named Specialized and loan-license units are covered Blood products Form 28E not named Form 28E is included Blood-product manufacturing is expressly recognized Umbilical cord blood stem cells Form 28F not named Form 28F is included Cord blood stem-cell establishments are expressly recognized The amendment substitutes the earlier words "Form 25 or Form 28" with a longer list. The new list covers Form 25, Form 25A, Form 25F, Form 28, Form 28A, Form 28B, Form 28D, Form 28DA, Form 28E, and Form 28F. What Has Not Changed The amendment does not remove the Form 29 assessment. It expands the forms considered during that assessment. It also does not: Permit commercial sale of drugs made under Form 29, Add a new drug to an existing manufacturing license, Expand an approved manufacturing site, Replace a product permission, new-drug approval, or other approval that may apply, Change Form 30 or the stated application fee, Change the three-year duration stated in Rule 91, Remove labelling, recordkeeping, inspection, or Inspection Book duties, or Create an express transition period for pending applications. License Forms Covered by Amended Rule 89 Each form covers a different permission. These broad descriptions do not replace a check of the actual license and product endorsements. Form 25 and Form 25A Form 25 covers manufacture for sale or distribution of drugs outside Schedules C, C(1), and X. Form 25A is the related loan license, allowing use of another licensed manufacturer's facilities subject to applicable conditions. Form 25F Form 25F covers Schedule X drugs not specified in Schedules C and C(1). Its inclusion clarifies Rule 89 for this category. Form 28 and Form 28A Form 28 covers drugs in Schedules C and C(1), excluding Schedule X. Form 28A is the related loan license for eligible Schedule C and C(1) drugs. Form 28B Form 28B covers drugs specified in Schedules C, C(1), and X. Form 28D and Form 28DA Form 28D is used for manufacturing parenterals, sera, vaccines, and recombinant DNA drugs in large volumes for sale/distribution, excepting those products listed in Schedule X as per the form. Form 28DA is the loan-license version for these specialized products. Form 28E Form 28E is a license to manufacture and store blood products for sale or distribution. The final amendment includes this form. This gives blood-product manufacturers an express place in the revised Rule 89 list. The English notification does not repeat the word "Form" immediately before "28E." Its placement in the list makes the reference clear, but internal notes should quote the Gazette accurately. Form 28F Form 28F covers collection, processing, testing, storage, banking, and release of umbilical cord blood stem cells. Scope and Applicability Businesses Most Likely to Be Affected The amendment affects businesses making small quantities for examination, testing, or analysis, including: Pharmaceutical manufacturers, Loan-licensees, Schedule X drug manufacturers, Vaccine and sera manufacturers, Large volume parenteral manufacturers, Recombinant DNA product manufacturers, Blood-product manufacturers, Umbilical cord blood stem-cell establishments, Research and development units attached to licensed plants, and Regulatory, quality, production, and testing teams. The Product-Specific Test The key limit is "in respect of such drugs." Holding a listed form does not automatically remove Form 29 for every test product. The business must check the drug, site, category, dosage form, activity, and product permission. If coverage is missing, Form 29 may still be required before manufacture. No Express Blanket Exemption The amendment does not use the words "blanket exemption." It changes the license form list under the existing conditions. This is why a written review of applicability is safer than relying solely on the number printed on a license. Implementation Timeline and Norms Event Date Practical meaning Draft notification issued 21 April 2026 Proposed wording was published Draft made available to the public 22 April 2026 Thirty-day consultation period began Final notification dated 6 August 2026 The government signed the final rules Official Gazette publication 7 August 2026 Amendment came into force Separate transition period Not expressly specified Businesses should apply the revised wording from commencement The rule came into force on 7 August 2026. The notice does not provide any separate compliance period or phased implementation period. It does not clearly stipulate how the State Licensing Authority is to deal with a Form 29 application pending at the time of commencement. Pending cases require a different kind of attention, as the business should not assume the application is automatically over. Instead, they should send their license, products covered, and status of the application to the licensing authority. Why Was This Implemented? Official Position The final notice concerns the legal procedure but does not provide a lengthy statement of reasons. The notice shows that the draft was published, public opinions were sought, those opinions were considered, and the Central Government acted in consultation with the DTAB. Regulatory Analysis The purpose of the regulation could be seen from the language used. Rule 89 was earlier confined to Forms 25 and 28, while the Drugs Rules included other manufacturing license forms as well. The amendment makes the Rule 89 list similar to the format of the entire license. This could help reduce confusion among specialized manufacturers. This could also ensure consistency in decision-making between companies and authorities. But this is a practical evaluation, and not a direct commitment in the notification that each application will get easier or cheaper. Impact on Businesses Pharmaceutical and Loan-License Manufacturers The persons holding Forms 25A, 25F, 28A, 28B, or 28DA can now refer to a more clearly worded document. The forms were not explicitly mentioned in Rule 89 before 7 August 2026. The use of this new language may minimize reliance on similarity to Form 25 or 28. Loan licensees still need to verify the exact license arrangement and the facility where the activity will occur. A loan license does not erase the conditions attached to the approved manufacturing premises. Vaccine and Biological-Product Manufacturers Forms 28D and 28DA are now explicitly mentioned. This is important for companies that manufacture high-volume parenterals, sera, vaccines, and products made using recombinant DNA technology. Such companies perform development and validation activities and may require a Rule 89 evaluation, which will impact their projects. The amendment does not remove other approvals that may apply to a new drug, biological product, clinical program, or product change. Rule 89 should not be read in isolation. Blood Products and Cord Blood Stem Cells The inclusion of Forms 28E and 28F adds blood products and umbilical cord blood stem cell activity to the list. This area has its own technical and safety requirements. Companies need to ensure that any reliance on the revised rule is consistent with their license. Compliance and Quality Teams There is also a need for the regulatory, quality assurance, research, and manufacturing departments to update their internal decision trees. The current process, which relies on asking whether the firm has Form 25 or 28, is outdated. The revised procedure should record all ten forms and require a product-specific check. It should also separate the legal question under Rule 89 from other approval, labeling, testing, and record duties. How Businesses Will Achieve Compliance Step 1: Check the Purpose Confirm that the drug is made only for testing or analysis. Form 29 cannot be used for commercial sale. Step 2: Check the Existing License Check which manufacturing license the business holds. Confirm that it is one of the ten forms listed under Rule 89. Step 3: Check Drug Coverage Make sure the license covers the drug being tested. Check the product, strength, dosage form, and premises. Step 4: Check Other Approvals Check whether any product, new drug, clinical trial, or other approval is needed. The Rule 89 amendment does not remove these requirements. Step 5: Check Whether Form 29 Is Needed Form 29 will be used if the license does not include the drug. Submit an application using Form 30 when you need to use Form 29. Step 6: Follow Test-Manufacturing Rules Use the drug only for testing or analysis. Keep proper labels, records, and inspection documents. Do not sell the test batch. Step 7: Keep a Written Decision Record Record: Drug and activity License number Approved premises Other approvals checked Form 29 decision Reviewer’s name and date This note is not required in this exact format, but it can help during an inspection. Documents and Records to Review Document or record Status Purpose Existing manufacturing license Required for reliance on a listed form Confirms form, holder, and premises Product list and endorsements Required to establish drug coverage Supports the "in respect of such drugs" check Form 30 application Required where Form 29 is needed Application for the test license Form 29 license Required where Rule 89 applies Authorizes specified test manufacture Labels for test material Required under Part VIII Shows the limited purpose and identification details Quantity and recipient records Required for Form 29 licensees Tracks manufacture and supply Inspection Book Required for Form 29 licensees Allows inspectors to record observations Internal applicability note Recommended Explains why Form 29 was or was not considered necessary Businesses should not use this table as a universal checklist for applications. Exact filings may depend on the product, the State Licensing Authority, the premises, and other applicable laws. Compliance Risks and Issues to Avoid Treating the Amendment as the End of Form 29 Form 29 continues to exist. The amendment changes the circumstances in which an existing manufacturing license is considered under Rule 89. A business without suitable drug coverage may still need it. Checking Only the Form Number A listed form is only the first check. The license should relate to the drug concerned. Ignoring product endorsements, premises, or approved categories can lead to a weak compliance position. Starting Manufacture Too Early Where Form 29 is required, Rule 89 requires that it be obtained before manufacture begins. Production planning should therefore include a regulatory release point before any test batch is started. Selling Test-License Material Rule 92 restricts material prepared using Form 29 to be used only for examination, testing, or analysis. Companies need to ensure that the material does not become part of their commercial supply or sales. Ignoring Labels and Records Labelling and record-keeping responsibilities are set out in Rules 87, 88, and 92. Regardless of how small the batch may be, labelling and quantity records are important issues. Benefits for Businesses The clearest benefit is better recognition of the license system already used by the pharmaceutical sector. More manufacturing forms are expressly named in Rule 89. Loan licensees receive clearer treatment. Schedule X manufacturers are specifically addressed. Vaccine, sera, large volume parenteral, and recombinant DNA product units are included. Blood product and cord blood stem cell establishments are recognized. Internal compliance checks can use a clearer form-based starting point. Businesses may avoid unnecessary Form 29 filings where an existing listed license truly covers the drug. These are possible compliance and operational benefits. The notification does not guarantee lower costs, faster approval, or exemption in every case. Is This the Right Decision or an Additional Burden? Assessment area Why is it the right decision Possible burden or concern Broader recognition of license forms The old Rule 89 referred only to Form 25 and Form 28. The amendment recognizes additional manufacturing license forms used for loan licenses, Schedule X drugs, vaccines, biological products, blood products, and other specialized categories. Businesses must identify which license form applies to their product and activity. Alignment with the current licensing system Rule 89 now better reflects the wider structure of pharmaceutical manufacturing licenses under the Drugs Rules, 1945. Compliance teams must update old policies, checklists, and decision trees that mention only Form 25 and Form 28. Reduction in regulatory uncertainty Expressly naming more license forms can reduce doubt about whether manufacturers operating under those forms are recognized under Rule 89. The amendment does not answer every product-specific question. Different interpretations may still arise. Potential reduction in duplicate paperwork Where a business already holds an appropriate manufacturing license covering the drug, a separate test license could create repetitive paperwork without materially changing the approved premises or technical capability. This benefit applies only when the existing license is genuinely “in respect of” the drug concerned. Meaning of “in respect of such drugs” The phrase ensures that the existing license must have a real connection with the drug being manufactured for examination, testing, or analysis. This is the most important area of interpretation. A license form number alone may not prove product coverage. Product permissions and endorsements The amendment recognizes more license categories without removing existing product-level controls. This protects the regulatory system from overly broad exemptions. Companies may incorrectly confuse a manufacturing license with permission to manufacture every drug at the site. Site-specific approval Keeping the assessment tied to the licensed premises helps ensure that test manufacturing occurs at an approved facility. A business may have the correct license form but plan to conduct the activity at another unit, laboratory, or pilot facility. Dosage-form coverage Product-specific assessment helps ensure that the facility is suitable for the dosage form being manufactured. A site licensed for tablets may not necessarily be authorized to manufacture sterile injections, vaccines, or another specialized dosage form. Specialized pharmaceutical products Adding forms related to Schedule X drugs, vaccines, biological products, blood products, and cord blood stem cells makes Rule 89 more relevant to specialized manufacturers. These products are subject to greater safety, quality, storage, testing, and documentation controls. Loan-license manufacturers Express recognition of loan-license forms provides greater clarity to businesses using another licensed manufacturer’s facilities. Compliance may involve both the loan-licensee and the owner of the manufacturing facility. Responsibilities can be misunderstood. New drugs and additional approvals The amendment deals with the Rule 89 and Form 29 framework. It does not weaken separate approval requirements that may apply to new drugs. A company may wrongly treat the amended rule as permission to manufacture or test a new drug without other approvals. Commercial sale restrictions The regulatory distinction between test manufacturing and commercial manufacturing remains important. It protects patients and the market from unapproved products. Businesses must maintain strict controls to prevent test batches from entering commercial distribution. Internal compliance procedures The amendment allows businesses to create a clearer and more complete Form 29 decision process. Revising SOPs, forms, software, and training programs requires time and resources. Regulatory inspections Clearer documentation can help inspectors understand why a company relied on an existing manufacturing license instead of obtaining Form 29. A weak or undocumented interpretation may be challenged during an inspection. Impact on smaller businesses The amendment may help smaller companies holding one of the newly recognized licenses by reducing uncertainty and potentially avoiding unnecessary applications. Smaller businesses may lack an in-house legal or regulatory team to interpret the phrase “in respect of such drugs.” Different State-level practices A clearer central rule can support more consistent decisions across jurisdictions. State Licensing Authorities may initially interpret or implement the amendment differently. Implementation cost The amendment does not create a completely new license category or a broad new filing obligation. Businesses may still spend money on license reviews, SOP revisions, staff training, and professional advice. Long-term regulatory benefit Broader, clearer wording can improve consistency, reduce redundant applications, and support research, testing, and product development. Benefits may be delayed if authorities and businesses do not apply the new language consistently. Risk of treating the amendment as a blanket exemption The amendment can provide relief where an appropriate existing license already covers the drug. The greatest risk is assuming that every holder of a listed license is automatically exempt from Form 29 for every drug. The amendment should be considered more as an effective clarification rather than a new licensing requirement. This is because it enhances compliance with current licensing requirements rather than introducing a new approval process. Nevertheless, the amendment's effectiveness can only be achieved through prudent, case-by-case application. Business Opportunities Created These changes may require specialized compliance services. The probabilities exist because there is a need to review existing licenses and internal systems, and not due to any guarantees of a new market. Evaluation of license applicability for test batches Support with Form 29 and Form 30 filings where applicable Evaluation of product endorsements and authorized premises Liability/loan license compliance evaluations SOP updates for research and test manufacture Training for regulatory, quality, research, and production teams Recordkeeping and inspection-readiness support Specialized advice for vaccines, biological products, blood products, and cord blood stem cells Manufacturers may also gain from clearer planning. When the legal route is known early, research, validation, and testing work can be scheduled with fewer last-minute licensing questions. What Businesses Should Do Next Immediate Review Any internal checklist for Rule 89 that includes only Forms 25 and 28 must be updated to include all ten forms and a specific question about product coverage. Product and Site Mapping Regulatory teams need to map proposed test products against existing licenses, endorsements, approved sites, and related permissions. If anything is unclear, it needs to be resolved before scheduling the batch. Pending Applications If there was any pending Form 29 application on 7 August 2026, the applicant needs to see whether the amended rule has affected their position. The notification doesn't mention that pending applications are either automatically withdrawn or approved. Ongoing Control Businesses should make the Rule 89 review part of change control or R&D batch approval. This will help ensure that the question is checked each time a new product, site, process, or license arrangement is introduced. How Corpseed Can Help Corpseed supports pharmaceutical businesses with a clear, document-based assessment of the Drugs Rule 89 amendment 2026. The process begins with a review of the company’s actual license, products, premises, and proposed test-manufacturing activity. 1. Rule 89 Applicability Assessment Check whether amended Rule 89 applies to the proposed activity.  Determine whether the existing license covers the drug.  Identify whether Form 29 is still required.  2. Manufacturing License Review Review Forms 25, 25A, 25F, 28, 28A, 28B, 28D, 28DA, 28E, and 28F.  Examine license conditions, endorsements, and validity.  Explain how the license relates to the proposed activity.  3. Product and Premises Coverage Check Confirm whether the product or dosage form is approved.  Verify that the activity will take place at licensed premises.  Identify missing product, site, or manufacturing permissions.  4. Form 29 License Consultant Support Determine whether a Form 29 license is necessary.  Prepare the required document checklist.  Support the business throughout the licensing process.  5. Form 30 Application Assistance Help prepare the Form 30 application where required.  Review drug, premises, purpose, and applicant details.  Assist with supporting documents and authority queries.  6. Pharmaceutical Regulatory Gap Assessment Analyze deficiencies in licenses and permissions.  Review labelling and testing requirements.  Suggest effective solutions to the gaps.   7. SOP and Internal Checklist Updates Update procedures that mention only Form 25 and Form 28.  Add all license forms recognized under the amended Rule 89.  Create a product-specific Form 29 decision checklist.  8. Document Review and Inspection Readiness Review licenses, product permissions, batch records, and test documents.  Organize evidence supporting the company’s regulatory decision.  Prepare teams and records for possible inspections.  9. Ongoing CDSCO and State License Compliance Support continuing CDSCO and State Licensing Authority compliance.  Assist with license amendments, renewals, and product additions.  Monitor relevant changes and help update compliance processes. 

Subject

Summary: The Directorate General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT ) has given businesses five more days to apply online for India-UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Calendar Year (CY) 2026. The application deadline, which was earlier set for 4 August 2026, has now been moved to 9 August 2026. The earlier closing date was 4 August 2026. The five-day extension applied only to the last date for filing online applications. It did not change the eligible vehicle categories, quota quantities, applicant eligibility, allocation method or import conditions set by Public Notice Nos. 19/2026-27 and 22/2026-27. Notification at a Glance Particular Verified details Issuing authority Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry Document type Public Notice - deadline extension Public notice number 26/2026-27 File number 01/89/180/110/AM-25/PC-2(A)/E-45719 Date of issue 5 August 2026 Gazette publication date 6 August 2026 Gazette identification CG-DL-E-06082026-275248, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, No. 222 Effective date Not separately or expressly specified Governing framework Paragraphs 1.03 and 2.04 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2023, Public Notice Nos. 19/2026-27 and 22/2026-27 Sector and activity covered Online TRQ applications for specified new CBU motor vehicles originating in the United Kingdom Main stakeholders Eligible OEMs and OEM-authorised dealers or channel partners seeking CY 2026 TRQ allocation Earlier deadline 4 August 2026 Revised deadline 9 August 2026 Core development Extension of the online application closing date by five calendar days Nature of requirement Time-bound application opportunity, no new eligibility or import condition was created by this notice This public notice is narrow in scope. It changes one procedural date and expressly preserves all other terms and conditions in the two earlier public notices. What Changed in the India-UK CETA TRQ Deadline? DGFT moved the closing date for online CY 2026 TRQ applications from 4 August to 9 August 2026. The authority stated that it granted the extension after considering representations received from trade and industry. Compliance area Earlier position Revised position Business meaning Application opening date 21 July 2026 Unchanged The original application window continued to apply Application closing date 4 August 2026 9 August 2026 Eligible applicants received five additional calendar days Eligible goods Specified new CBU passenger and goods vehicles Unchanged No additional vehicle category entered the CY 2026 window TRQ quantities Quantities notified by Public Notice No. 22/2026-27 Unchanged The extension did not increase quota availability Eligibility and allocation rules Conditions under Public Notice No. 19/2026-27 Unchanged The same applicant, evidence and allocation requirements continued Public Notice No. 26/2026-27 did not reopen or redesign the TRQ scheme. Its legal effect was limited to extending the last date for submitting an online application. Application Coverage and CY 2026 TRQ Quantities Public Notice No. 22/2026-27 invited applications for four categories of motor vehicles. The goods had to be imported as Completely Built Units (CBUs). The covered passenger vehicles also had to be new, meaning they had not been registered anywhere before importation. Covered vehicle category CY 2026 TRQ quantity Main tariff-item group New CBU passenger vehicles with engine capacity not exceeding 1,500 cc 2,329 Specified tariff items under HS 8703 New CBU passenger vehicles exceeding 1,500 cc but not exceeding 3,000 cc for petrol vehicles, or exceeding 1,500 cc but not exceeding 2,500 cc for diesel vehicles 2,329 Specified tariff items under HS 8703 New CBU passenger vehicles above 3,000 cc for petrol vehicles, or above 2,500 cc for diesel vehicles 4,658 Specified tariff items under HS 8703 CBU goods transport vehicles, other than electric or hydrogen-fuel vehicles 1,164 87041010, 87042100, 87042200, 87042300, 87043100 and 87043200 The overall amount for CY 2026 notification was 10,480 vehicles. The overall amount does not imply that all applicants were eligible for an allocation. Eligibility review, the quantity requested and the applicable allocation method remained pertinent. Electric, hybrid and hydrogen passenger-car TRQs appear in the broader annual framework notified through Public Notice No. 19/2026-27, but Public Notice No. 22/2026-27 did not invite CY 2026 applications for those passenger-vehicle categories. They should therefore not be added to the scope of this deadline extension. The Regulatory Framework and Unchanged Conditions The Foreign Trade Policy 2023 authorises DGFT to notify and amend the Handbook of Procedures, its appendices and application forms through public notices. Acting under that framework, Public Notice No. 19/2026-27 amended paragraph 2.92 and Appendix 2A of the Handbook of Procedures 2023 to incorporate India-UK CETA vehicle TRQs and their administration procedure. Notice No. 22/2026-27 subsequently made available the CY 2026 application period together with the list of covered products and their quantities. Public Notice No. 26/2026-27 altered only the deadline. Since the extension notice kept everything else intact, the applicants were bound by the original framework, which included the following terms: Eligible applicants: Only Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), or dealers and channel partners duly authorised by OEMs of vehicles originating in the United Kingdom, were eligible to apply. Pre-purchase agreement: Each applicant had to submit an agreement issued by the UK vehicle OEM stating the quantity agreed to be supplied during the relevant TRQ year under each TRQ. Online filing: Applications had to be submitted on the DGFT website through the Import Management System's TRQ service. Allocation when demand was within quota: An eligible applicant could receive the quantity requested. Any remaining quantity could be made available through a further filing opportunity. Allocation when demand exceeded quota: Available quantities were to be distributed among eligible applicants in proportion to the quantity each requested on the basis of its pre-purchase agreement. Certificate of Origin: At customs clearance, the importer had to produce a Certificate of Origin issued by the competent UK authority. Electronic authorisation and debit: DGFT was to issue the TRQ electronically and transmit it to the Indian Customs EDI System. Imports were allowed only against electronic debit in that system. Validity: A TRQ certificate could remain valid for a maximum of 12 months or until the end of the calendar year, whichever occurred first. Customs clearance had to take place within the stated validity. Under-utilisation: Significant failure to use an allocation could be considered by the authority when determining the importer's allocation for the next TRQ year. Quota control: DGFT was to monitor cumulative certificates and stop issuing them once the applicable quantity limit was reached. These are continuing conditions from the underlying procedure, not new duties created by the deadline-extension notice. Annexure Reference Requires Official Clarification The linked public notices contain a material cross-reference inconsistency. Public Notice No. 19/2026-27 says that the India-UK CETA TRQ application procedure will be inserted as Annexure VI of Appendix 2A of the Handbook of Procedures 2023. Public Notice No. 22/2026-27, however, refers applicants to Annexure VII of Appendix 2A of the FTP 2023 while citing Public Notice No. 19/2026-27. The notice does not clarify the difference between the two references. Applicants should not assume which one is correct. It is better to check the latest consolidated Handbook of Procedures or confirm the position with DGFT before using the reference in an application, legal document, or customs record. Impact on Eligible Vehicle Importers The extension offered a short opportunity to complete an otherwise eligible filing. It did not relax the evidence standard or guarantee an allocation. OEMs and OEM-authorised applicants Eligible applicants had five additional calendar days to finalise the online form and supporting pre-purchase agreement. Businesses still had to establish their status as an OEM or a duly authorised dealer or channel partner. Requested quantities continued to affect allocation if valid demand exceeded the available TRQ. Import, customs and compliance teams Teams needed to align the requested tariff item, vehicle type, engine capacity and quantity with the precise categories in Public Notice No. 22/2026-27. Getting a quota does not finish the import process. The Certificate of Origin, TRQ validity and electronic customs debit still need to be in place when the vehicle is cleared. Applicants should keep copies of the application, acknowledgement, OEM authorisation, pre-purchase agreement and any later communication from DGFT. These records may be needed to support the transaction or deal with questions later. Commercial planning The extension did not increase the quota or alter the tariff treatment. Businesses should not interpret extra filing time as additional vehicle availability. Supply, shipment, and customs planning would still need to fit within the authorisation's stated validity period and end by the end of CY 2026. Any commercial benefit depends on receiving an allocation, satisfying origin and import conditions, and completing clearance within the valid period. What Businesses Should Do After the Deadline Because the 9 August 2026 deadline has passed, the appropriate next step depends on whether an application was submitted in time. Priority Action Responsible team Expected outcome Immediate Confirm that the portal submission was completed on or before 9 August 2026 and retain the acknowledgement Import compliance / DGFT team Evidence of timely filing Immediate Reconcile the vehicle category, tariff item, quantity and pre-purchase agreement with the filed application Legal, customs and procurement teams Early identification of inconsistencies High Monitor the DGFT account and official communications for allocation, queries or further filing rounds Authorised signatory/compliance team Timely response to the authority High Prepare Certificate of Origin and customs-clearance controls for any allocation received Authorised signatory/compliance team Readiness for compliant clearance Ongoing Track authorisation validity and actual utilisation against the allocated quantity Supply-chain and compliance teams Reduced risk of expiry or under-utilisation If no timely application was filed Monitor the official DGFT public-notice page for a further window or reallocation, do not assume late filing is permitted Management and regulatory team Action based only on an official opportunity A business that missed the deadline should not backdate, misstate or treat a draft application as a completed filing. The source notice does not provide a late-application route, a condonation mechanism, or an individual relaxation procedure. How Corpseed Can Help Corpseed can provide DGFT TRQ application support and related import-compliance assistance for businesses handling vehicle imports under the India-UK CETA. Support can be tailored to the applicant's role, vehicle category and stage of the DGFT process. Review applicant eligibility as an OEM or OEM-authorised dealer or channel partner. Map vehicle descriptions and tariff items to the notified CY 2026 TRQ categories. Review OEM authorisation and pre-purchase agreements for consistency with the filing. Check submitted applications and acknowledgements for internal record completeness. Support responses to DGFT queries or requests for clarification. Coordinate authorisation, Certificate of Origin and customs-document readiness. Track allocation validity, quantities and utilisation controls. Monitor official notices for any reallocation or fresh application opportunity. Professional support cannot guarantee allocation, preferential duty treatment or customs clearance. It can help applicants organise evidence, identify inconsistencies and coordinate the DGFT and import-compliance work streams. Eligible businesses seeking a review of a filed application or post-allocation compliance may contact Corpseed for document-specific DGFT and India-UK CETA advisory support. Key Takeaways The India-UK CETA TRQ deadline extension moved the CY 2026 online application closing date from 04, August to 09 August, 2026. It did not change the covered CBU vehicle categories, the 10,480-unit aggregate quota, applicant eligibility, allocation method, or import conditions. DGFT issued the extension through Public Notice No. 26/2026-27 dated 5 August 2026. The extension followed representations from trade and industry. Only the application deadline changed, all terms in Public Notice Nos. 19/2026-27 and 22/2026-27 remained in force. The extended deadline ended on 09 August 2026. Businesses that filed their applications should keep the acknowledgement and other filing records ready in case DGFT or customs asks for them. Those who missed the deadline should not assume that late applications are still open. They should wait for any further update or reallocation announced by DGFT. The difference between Annexure VI and Annexure VII in the earlier notices also needs to be checked against the latest official procedure.

Subject

Summary: The Central Government has notified TEC 67010:2026, Generic Requirements for Valve Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) Batteries as a revised standard for telecommunication equipment. The notification has been issued under Section 19 of the Telecommunications Act 2023, read with Rule 5 of the Telecommunications (Framework to Notify Standards, Conformity Assessment and Certification) Rules, 2025. The revised standard is relevant to manufacturers, importers, suppliers and other businesses dealing with VRLA batteries used in telecom applications. Since these batteries provide backup power to telecom equipment, their performance, safety and reliability are directly linked to network continuity. For businesses, the key question is not simply whether the battery meets the older technical requirements. They need to determine whether their existing product specifications, test reports and compliance documentation remain aligned with TEC 67010:2026 and whether any additional testing or certification action is required. Background and Context TEC 67010:2026 governs telecommunications-related Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) batteries. This new standard incorporates changes from the earlier specification to keep pace with developments in VRLA battery technology. The standard covers requirements relating to: General requirements and construction Electrical and performance characteristics Chemical requirements Safety Environmental conditions Test methods Installation and maintenance information Information relevant to purchasers This update is particularly important for businesses whose VRLA battery products are already being supplied to the telecom sector under an earlier TEC standard. Existing approvals and test reports should be reviewed against the revised requirements rather than being assumed to cover the new standard automatically. Manufacturers, importers and telecom suppliers should now assess their product-specific compliance position, identify testing or documentation gaps and determine the applicable TEC/MTCTE certification action. What Is TEC 67010:2026? TEC 67010:2026 is the revised generic requirement standard for Valve Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) Batteries used in telecommunications. VRLA batteries use an immobilised electrolyte and are designed for applications where reliable standby power is important. The standard addresses several aspects of battery performance and construction rather than focusing on capacity alone. It covers areas such as: General battery requirements Constructional features Electrical characteristics Performance requirements Chemical requirements Safety considerations Environmental requirements Test methods Installation and maintenance information Purchaser-related information For manufacturers, this means compliance needs to be looked at across the product lifecycle. A battery may have satisfactory capacity and still require attention to other technical requirements covered by the standard. This is why companies considering TEC certification services should begin with a product-to-standard gap assessment instead of immediately booking laboratory testing. What Has Changed Under TEC 67010:2026? TEC has revised the requirements covers the technical requirements that manufacturers, testing laboratories and buyers need to consider when assessing these batteries. For businesses, the key areas to review include: Updated Technical Requirements: Existing product specifications should be checked against the requirements prescribed under TEC 67010:2026. Performance and Electrical Parameters: Manufacturers need to verify that the battery's electrical and performance characteristics are supported by the applicable test evidence. Safety Requirements: Battery construction, operation and protection features need to be assessed against the applicable safety requirements. Environmental Performance: Businesses should review whether their existing test evidence adequately covers the environmental requirements applicable to the product. Testing Methodology: Existing test reports should be mapped against the revised test methods to identify where additional testing may be required. Product Documentation: Technical specifications, installation instructions, maintenance information and other supporting documents may need to be updated to reflect the revised requirements. The exact compliance action will depend on the battery model, configuration, existing approval status and available test evidence. Businesses should complete a gap assessment before deciding whether retesting or further certification action is necessary. Why Is the Revised VRLA Standard Important? VRLA batteries are an important part of telecom backup power infrastructure. A failure in the battery system can affect the continuity of telecom equipment during power interruptions. The revised standard therefore has implications beyond laboratory testing. Reliability of Telecom Backup Power Telecom equipment depends on backup batteries when the primary power source is unavailable. Updated performance requirements can help improve the reliability of batteries deployed in telecom networks. Product Quality and Safety A defined technical framework gives manufacturers and buyers clearer benchmarks for evaluating battery construction, performance and safety. Better Procurement Decisions Telecom operators and infrastructure companies can use compliance documentation as part of supplier and product evaluation instead of relying only on commercial specifications. Impact on Existing Products VRLA battery makers must check existing products in relation to TEC 67010:2026. Previous test reports or approvals may need to be checked to see whether they adequately address the revised requirements. Greater Compliance Responsibility for Importers Importers and foreign manufacturers supplying VRLA batteries to India should establish the applicable TEC and MTCTE requirements before treating the product as ready for the Indian telecom market. Who Needs to Review TEC 67010:2026 Compliance? The revised requirements can affect businesses at different points in the telecom battery supply chain. Business Key Compliance Concern VRLA Battery Manufacturers Product design, testing and technical documentation Importers Applicable TEC requirements and certification status Foreign OEMs Indian certification pathway and authorised representative requirements Telecom Power System Manufacturers Compliance of batteries integrated into power systems Telecom Equipment Suppliers Certification status of supplied battery models Telecom Operators Vendor qualification and procurement checks System Integrators Verification of battery compliance before deployment For companies with multiple battery models, a TEC certification consultant can help map each product against the applicable requirements and identify where testing, documentation or certification support is required. Key Compliance Requirements under TEC 67010:2026 Businesses should assess the complete applicable requirements of TEC 67010:2026 instead of checking only the battery capacity or discharge performance. The revised standard covers technical, safety, environmental and testing aspects of VRLA batteries. 1. General and Construction Requirements Manufacturers should review the construction and configuration of the VRLA battery against the applicable requirements, including: Cell and battery construction Materials and components Terminals and connections Battery enclosure and physical arrangement Identification and markings Construction-related safety provisions The product specification and manufacturing documentation should accurately reflect the configuration submitted for assessment. 2. Electrical and Performance Requirements The battery needs to demonstrate the required electrical, and performance characteristics under the applicable test conditions. Businesses should review relevant parameters such as: Capacity and discharge performance Charging characteristics Float operation Voltage behaviour Internal resistance Performance under specified operating conditions 3. Safety Requirements Manufacturers should verify battery construction, protection, operation and safe handling against the applicable safety requirements. 4. Environmental Requirements Businesses should check whether existing test evidence covers the environmental conditions and tests specified under TEC 67010:2026. 5. Testing Requirements The revised standard provides test methods for evaluating relevant characteristics of cells, mono-blocks and batteries. Before approaching a laboratory, businesses should: Identify the tests applicable to the specific product. Map existing reports against the revised requirements. Identify missing or outdated test evidence. Confirm the appropriate testing route. Prepare the required product and technical documentation. This pre-testing review can help avoid unnecessary repeat testing and reduce delays during the certification process. What Should Manufacturers and Importers Do Now? Businesses should treat the notification as a reason to review their current compliance position rather than waiting until a customer or regulator asks for updated documents. Step 1: Identify the Applicable Product Requirements Confirm that the VRLA battery and its intended telecom application fall within the applicable TEC requirements. Step 2: Review Existing Compliance Documents Collect previous TEC approvals, test reports, technical specifications, datasheets and product documentation. Step 3: Conduct a Gap Assessment Compare the existing product and supporting evidence with TEC 67010:2026. Step 4: Address Technical Gaps If the assessment identifies design, performance or safety gaps, make the required corrections before final testing. Step 5: Plan Laboratory Testing Determine which tests require fresh evidence and coordinate the applicable testing with the relevant laboratory. Step 6: Complete TEC/MTCTE Compliance Prepare the application and supporting documents required under the applicable conformity assessment and certification process. Step 7: Maintain Records Keep the final certification documents, test reports and product specifications properly organised. Any future product or manufacturing changes should also be reviewed for their potential impact on compliance. Impact on Businesses The new TEC 67010:2026 standard may have implications for product testing, technical documentation, certification process, and procurement. 1. VRLA Battery Manufacturers Area Impact Product Review Existing battery models should be assessed against TEC 67010:2026. Testing Existing test reports should be checked to identify any testing gaps. Documentation Technical specifications, manuals and supporting documents may need updates. Certification Manufacturers should determine the applicable TEC/MTCTE certification requirements. Product Changes Any design or component changes should be assessed for their compliance impact. 2. Importers and Foreign OEMs Area Impact Market Entry Applicable TEC requirements should be established before supplying products in India. Test Reports Existing international or previous test reports should be mapped against the applicable requirements. Documentation Product and technical information should remain consistent across certification records. Indian Representation Foreign manufacturers should assess whether an Authorised Indian Representative is required. Shipment Planning Certification and compliance requirements should be considered before commercial imports. 3. Telecom Operators and Infrastructure Companies Area Impact Procurement Suppliers should be evaluated for applicable TEC compliance. Vendor Checks Battery models and certification documents should be verified before purchase. Existing Inventory Existing battery models can be reviewed against the revised standard where relevant. Technical Reliability Procurement teams can use compliance evidence as an additional product-quality benchmark. 4. Telecom Power-System Suppliers and Integrators Companies supplying telecom power systems should verify the compliance position of VRLA batteries sourced from third parties. Battery specifications, model numbers, test reports and certification documents should match the products actually supplied and deployed. This is particularly important where a supplier integrates batteries into a larger telecom power solution and relies on third-party manufacturers for the battery component. How Businesses Can Achieve Compliance Companies dealing with VRLA batteries should check their products against TEC 67010:2026 and close any testing, documentation or certification gaps before they create issues during procurement or market access. Step-by-Step Compliance Pathway Identify the Applicable Requirements: Check the TEC requirements that apply to the VRLA battery and its telecom application. Review Existing Documents: Check your latest test reports, product specifications, datasheets, approvals and other technical documents. Conduct a Gap Assessment: Compare existing product evidence with TEC 67010:2026 and identify missing or outdated requirements. Address Product Gaps: Make necessary changes to product design, construction, performance or documentation where required. Complete Required Testing: Arrange applicable testing through the relevant testing laboratory and obtain supporting test evidence. Prepare the Certification Application: Compile the technical documents and test reports required for the applicable TEC/MTCTE process. Respond to Queries: Provide additional documents or clarifications if requested during the assessment or certification process. Maintain Compliance Records: Keep the approval, test reports and product documentation updated and review future product changes for their compliance impact. What Documents Should Businesses Keep Ready? Having the right documents ready can make the certification process more efficient. Depending on the product and applicable process, businesses may need: Product technical specifications Datasheets and product photographs Battery model and rating details Construction or design information Applicable test reports Manufacturing details Installation and maintenance instructions Existing TEC or certification documents Relevant declarations and supporting records The exact documentation should be confirmed against the applicable TEC requirements before submission. Benefits of Complying With TEC 67010:2026 Following TEC 67010:2026 can help businesses meet the applicable requirements and keep their VRLA battery products ready for telecom procurement and supply. Benefit Business Value Regulatory Readiness Helps businesses address applicable TEC and MTCTE requirements. Faster Customer Response Updated test reports and technical documents can be provided when buyers request them. Procurement Eligibility A clear compliance position can support supplier qualification and telecom procurement. Better Product Confidence Testing provides objective evidence of relevant battery performance and safety parameters. Reduced Compliance Delays Identifying documentation and testing gaps early can reduce avoidable rework. Market Credibility Demonstrable compliance can strengthen the manufacturer's position with telecom customers and system integrators. Common Compliance Gaps Businesses Should Watch Businesses often face delays because the product and its documentation are not aligned. Some common areas to check include: Old Test Reports: Existing reports may not cover every requirement under the revised standard. Product-Document Mismatch: Model numbers, ratings or specifications may differ across the product, test report and application. Incomplete Technical Files: Missing specifications or supporting documents can delay the certification process. Unassessed Product Changes: Changes in components, construction or manufacturing can affect the compliance position. Unclear Testing Scope: Starting laboratory testing without first identifying the applicable requirements can result in unnecessary testing or rework. What Happens If Businesses Do Not Review Their Compliance? For manufacturers and importers, overlooking the revised requirements can create practical problems during certification, customer qualification or procurement. Potential issues include: Delays in certification or approval Additional testing and documentation costs Difficulty responding to customer compliance queries Problems during supplier qualification Delays in launching or supplying updated battery models Greater risk of non-compliance due to outdated technical records The impact will depend on the product, applicable regulatory requirements and its existing certification position. Businesses should assess their individual position rather than assuming that every existing VRLA battery approval is affected in the same way. What Businesses Should Do Next? Businesses dealing with VRLA batteries should review their existing products, test reports and certification documents against TEC 67010:2026. Identify any testing or documentation gaps, address them early and confirm the applicable TEC/MTCTE compliance requirements before supplying or procuring the affected products. Need help assessing your VRLA battery compliance? Connect with Corpseed's TEC certification experts for practical support. Corpseed TEC Certification and Compliance Support For VRLA battery manufacturers, importers and telecom suppliers, understanding TEC 67010:2026 is only the first step. The next challenge is identifying the applicable requirements, checking existing test evidence and completing the right certification process without unnecessary delays. Corpseed can support businesses with: Service Support Offered TEC Certification Consultant Assess the applicable TEC requirements for VRLA battery products. TEC Compliance Gap Assessment Review existing specifications, test reports and documents against TEC 67010:2026. TEC Testing Support Help identify applicable testing requirements and coordinate the testing process. MTCTE Certification Services Support the applicable certification application, documentation and regulatory process. TEC Documentation Support Assist with organising technical documents, reports and supporting records. Importer & OEM Compliance Help foreign manufacturers and importers understand their India-specific compliance requirements. Existing Approval Review Assess earlier approvals and test reports to identify potential gaps under the revised standard. Key Takeaways TEC 67010:2026 revises the generic requirements for VRLA batteries used in telecommunications. Manufacturers and importers should review existing products, test reports and technical documentation against the revised standard. Existing approvals should be assessed to determine whether additional testing, documentation or certification action is required. Telecom operators and procurement teams should verify the compliance status of VRLA battery suppliers and products. Early TEC compliance assessment can help reduce testing delays, documentation gaps and avoidable rework. Businesses requiring support can work with a TEC certification consultant for gap assessment, testing, documentation and applicable MTCTE certification.

Subject

Summary: The Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery and Gold Articles (Third Amendment) Order, 2026, is an amendment to the existing law on mandatory gold hallmarking in India and affects all jewellers, gold dealers, manufacturers, and retailers operating in India. This order, issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, on August 3, 2026, and published in the Gazette of India on August 6, 2026, amends the list of districts for which BIS hallmarking of gold jewellery is mandatory. If your business sells, manufactures, or trades gold jewellery or gold artefacts, this update could change whether hallmarking is now mandatory in the district where you operate, and getting it wrong can mean penalties, seized stock, or a blocked BIS registration . Many businesses struggle to track ongoing changes like this one, which is exactly why working with an experienced gold hallmarking compliance consultant like Corpseed can help you stay ahead of the deadline rather than react to it after an inspection. Key Highlights of the Amendment The order is called the Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery and Gold Artefacts (Third Amendment) Order, 2026. It has been issued by the Central Government, through the Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. It is issued under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016, specifically Section 14(3) read with Sections 15(2), 15(3), 16, 17, and 25(3). The government consulted the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) before issuing this order, as required by law. The amendment replaces the entire Annexure (the district-wise list) of the original Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery and Gold Artefacts Order, 2020. The new Annexure lists districts, state by state and union territory by union territory, where hallmarking of gold jewellery and gold artefacts is mandatory. The order becomes effective immediately from its date of publication in the Official Gazette, i.e., August 6, 2026. This is the third amendment to the original 2020 Order. The principal order was notified on January 15, 2020, and was last amended on April 28, 2026 (S.O. 2117(E)), before this latest change. The order is signed by Richa Misra, Additional Secretary, on behalf of the Central Government. Businesses operating in any district newly added to the Annexure must ensure their gold jewellery and gold artefacts carry a valid BIS hallmark without delay. No transition period is separately specified in the order; compliance is expected from the date the order takes effect. The Regulatory Framework What Law Governs This Order? This order is made under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 (Act No. 11 of 2016). In simple terms, this law empowers the Central Government and BIS to make hallmarking (a quality and purity certification mark) compulsory for certain goods, including gold jewellery and gold artefacts. The specific legal provisions used are: Section 14(3)- power to specify goods, articles, or products for compulsory hallmarking or certification. Section 15(2) and 15(3)- powers related to standard marks and certification schemes. Section 16- provisions dealing with hallmarking or certification requirements. Section 17- provisions on how compulsory marking is implemented. Section 25(3)- powers to make orders for goods or articles requiring compulsory certification. Who Is the Regulatory Authority? The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is India's national standards body and the technical authority responsible for hallmarking. The Department of Consumer Affairs (under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution) is the administrative authority that issues the legal order making hallmarking compulsory in specified districts, after formally consulting BIS. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this framework is to ensure that gold jewellery and gold artefacts sold in India meet a guaranteed purity standard, verified and certified by a BIS hallmark. The scope of this particular amendment is limited to updating the list of districts where this requirement legally applies it does not change the hallmarking process, purity standards, or registration requirements themselves, which continue to be governed by the parent 2020 Order and BIS regulations. Industries Covered This order applies to: Gold jewellery manufacturers Gold artefact makers Jewellery retailers and showrooms Gold traders and wholesalers Jewellery exporters dealing in domestic sales. Any business that sells or supplies gold jewellery or gold artefacts to consumers in the districts listed in the Annexure What Has Changed? The core change made by this amendment is straightforward but important: the entire Annexure (district list) of the 2020 Order has been replaced with a new Annexure. Aspect Position Before This Amendment Position After This Amendment (2026) Governing Annexure Annexure as it stood after the amendment dated April 28, 2026 (S.O. 2117(E)) New Annexure substituted in full by this order (S.O. 4345(E)) District coverage Based on the earlier notified list Updated, state-wise and UT-wise list of districts as newly published Legal status Hallmarking mandatory only in previously listed districts Hallmarking mandatory in all districts now listed in the new Annexure Effective date N/A From the date of publication in the Gazette, i.e., August 6, 2026 Not sure which rule applies to your stock? Corpseed's BIS Registration experts can review your product line against the current Annexure in a single consultation.  Important Note: The order text itself does not describe the amendment as adding a fixed number of new districts it simply states that the previous Annexure "shall be substituted" with the new one. Businesses should check the new Annexure directly against their operating district to confirm applicability, rather than assuming their district's status has stayed the same. Which Districts Are Covered Under the New Annexure? The new Annexure lists districts across 26 states and union territories. Below is a quick-reference table of some of the major districts named in the official list, so you can quickly check whether a well-known city or district near you is covered. This is not the complete list; the notification spans dozens of districts per state, but it gives you a quick way to check the states and prominent districts most people search for. State / UT Prominent Districts Covered (as per the official Annexure) Delhi New Delhi, Central Delhi, East Delhi, North Delhi, South Delhi, West Delhi, North West Delhi, South East Delhi Maharashtra Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Pune, Nagpur, Nashik, Thane, Aurangabad, Kolhapur Karnataka Bengaluru Urban, Mysore, Dakshina Kannada, Belagavi, Hubli-area (Dharwad) Tamil Nadu Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Salem, Vellore Telangana Hyderabad, Rangareddy, Warangal Urban, Warangal Rural, Karimnagar West Bengal Kolkata, Howrah, Darjeeling, Hooghly, North 24 Parganas, South 24 Parganas Gujarat Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara, Rajkot, Bhavnagar, Kutch Rajasthan Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Kota, Ajmer, Bikaner Uttar Pradesh Lucknow, Agra, Kanpur Nagar, Varanasi, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Prayagraj Punjab Amritsar, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Patiala, Bathinda Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam, Guntur, Krishna, Kurnool, East Godavari Kerala Ernakulam, Thiruvananthapuram, Kozhikode, Thrissur, Kollam Madhya Pradesh Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior, Jabalpur, Ujjain Bihar Patna, Gaya, Bhagalpur, Muzaffarpur, Darbhanga Assam Kamrup Metro, Cachar, Jorhat, Nagaon, Dibrugarh-area (Tinsukia) Chandigarh Chandigarh Puducherry Puducherry, Karaikal Don't see your exact district above? The full Annexure covers many more districts within each of these states (and others, including Chhattisgarh, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Odisha, Tripura, and Uttarakhand). Since hallmarking applicability is district-specific and legally binding, always verify your exact district against the official Gazette notification rather than relying on general area names. If you're unsure how to read the Annexure or want direct confirmation for your business location, Corpseed's compliance team can check district applicability for you as part of a hallmarking compliance review. Implementation Timeline / Norms Effective Date: The order shall come into effect on August 6, 2026, which is the date of publication of this order in the Official Gazette. No such delay in the operation of the order has been provided for. Compliance Deadline: In view of the immediate operation of the order, businesses operating in districts covered by the new Annexure are required to comply with this date. Applicability: The order applies to any business dealing in gold jewellery or gold artefacts within a district named in the new Annexure. Required Actions: Check whether your operating district appears in the new Annexure. If it does, confirm your BIS hallmarking registration is active and valid. Ensure every piece of gold jewellery or gold artefact sold carries a genuine BIS hallmark (including a HUID). Update internal compliance checklists and staff training to reflect the new district status, if applicable. Maintain proper documentation proving hallmarking compliance in the event of an inspection. Why Was This Implemented? While the order itself is procedural (updating a district list), it fits into the Central Government's broader objective behind mandatory gold hallmarking, which includes: Consumer protection:  ensuring buyers of gold jewellery get exactly the purity they pay for. Standardisation:  bringing gold jewellery sold across India under a uniform, verifiable quality mark. Trade transparency:  reducing disputes between buyers and sellers over gold purity. Ease of doing business:  giving jewellers a clear, predictable national framework instead of inconsistent local practices. Progressive expansion:  gradually widening hallmarking coverage to more districts as BIS's registration and assaying infrastructure (Assaying & Hallmarking Centres) becomes available in those areas. Impact on Businesses Gold jewellery and articles manufacturers: Manufacturers whose factory is located in a new area covered under the Act shall ensure that all their products are hallmarked before being sold. Importers: Those importers who repack, relabel, and sell the gold jewellery within India shall ensure compliance with hallmarking laws. Exporters: In most cases, exporters dealing in export business to countries other than India are not much affected by the Act; however, in the event of any domestic sale in a covered district, they are affected by the Act. Brand owners and large jewellery chains: Multi-location brands need to map every showroom against the new Annexure and update store-level compliance status accordingly. MSMEs and small jewellers: Smaller businesses, which may have limited compliance bandwidth, face the greatest operational adjustment if their district is newly listed, as they must quickly arrange BIS registration and access to hallmarking. Startups entering the jewellery business: New entrants must build hallmarking compliance into their business plan from day one if operating in a listed district. Traders, distributors, and retailers: Anyone in the supply chain selling directly to consumers in a covered district must verify that stock received from suppliers is properly hallmarked. OEMs and job-work units: Units manufacturing on behalf of brands must ensure hallmarking is completed before goods are dispatched for sale. Service providers (repair, remaking, customisation): Businesses that alter or remake jewellery for customers should be aware that hallmarking obligations continue to apply to the finished product sold. The operational impact includes coordinating with AHCs for testing and marking; the legal impact includes potential penalties for non-compliance; the financial impact includes hallmarking and registration costs, the documentation impact includes maintaining hallmarking records, and the supply chain impact includes verifying hallmark status of goods received from vendors before resale. How Businesses Will Achieve Compliance? Check district applicability:  Compare your business location against the new Annexure published with this order. BIS Registration:  Apply for or renew your BIS hallmarking registration if your district is newly covered. Documentation:  Maintain proof of registration, hallmarking certificates, and HUID records for all stock. Testing and Assaying:  Get gold jewellery and artefacts tested and hallmarked through a BIS-recognised Assaying and Hallmarking Centre. Approvals:  Ensure all necessary BIS approvals are current before selling hallmark-required stock. Certification:  Confirm each piece carries the mandatory hallmark, including purity grade and HUID. Inspection Readiness:  Keep records organised so you can respond quickly if BIS or Legal Metrology officials inspect your premises. Renewals:  Track registration validity and renew before expiry to avoid a compliance gap. Reporting:  Maintain internal reporting on hallmarking status across all outlets and stock. Record Maintenance:  Preserve purchase and hallmarking records for the period required under BIS rules. Common Compliance Mistakes: Assuming an old district status still applies without checking the updated Annexure. Selling hallmarked stock while a fresh BIS registration application is still pending. Not training sales staff to check hallmark and HUID details before billing. Poor recordkeeping that makes it hard to prove compliance during an inspection. Practical Tip: Don't wait for an inspection to discover your district has been added to the mandatory list. Proactively verifying applicability, the moment an order is published protects your business from last-minute scrambling. Need this done for you? Corpseed handles BIS hallmarking registration end-to-end from checking district applicability to filing your application and tracking approval.  Benefits for Businesses Below are the key benefits businesses can gain by complying with BIS hallmarking requirements. Legal compliance with the BIS Act, avoiding penalties and enforcement action. Reduced risk of penalties, seizure of hallmarked stock, or business disruption. Greater consumer trust, since a BIS hallmark is a recognised assurance of gold purity. Stronger brand reputation in a market increasingly sensitive to authenticity. Business continuity, avoiding the risk of a stop-sale situation due to non-compliance. Better market access, since informed buyers and large retail partners prefer hallmarked jewellery. Operational clarity, with a single, verifiable national standard instead of inconsistent practices. Right Decision or Additional Burden? Mandatory hallmarking and its gradual district-by-district expansion are generally seen as a positive step for consumer protection and market credibility. Still, it does come with real costs for smaller businesses. Strengths: The initiative builds consumer confidence in the quality of gold jewellery, eliminates disputes over purity, and creates a level playing field for both legitimate and fraudulent vendors. Difficulties: Companies in the newly included zones will incur costs and effort to become registered with BIS, arrange hallmarking through AHCs, and train employees. Costs of compliance: They include registration costs, per-piece hallmarking fees, and logistics costs arising from the distance from AHCs. Business preparedness: Large, well-organized firms are likely to adjust more easily than MSMEs and start-ups. Long-term impact: Over time, mandatory hallmarking is expected to formalise the gold trade further and reduce purity-related complaints, benefiting compliant businesses more than it burdens them. Business Opportunities Created Expanded, standardised market access in districts newly brought under mandatory hallmarking, where compliant sellers gain a competitive edge over non-compliant ones. Consumer confidence-driven sales growth, as buyers increasingly prefer hallmarked jewellery. Opportunities for Assaying and Hallmarking Centres to expand infrastructure in newly covered districts. Demand for compliance consulting is rising as businesses seek expert help to register with the BIS quickly and correctly. Technology and process upgrades, such as better inventory and hallmark-tracking systems. Investment opportunities for organised jewellery retail chains looking to formalise operations in newly regulated markets. Why Choose Corpseed? Navigating a regulatory update like this one figuring out whether your district is newly covered, getting BIS hallmarking registration in place, and making sure every piece of stock is compliant takes time that most business owners don't have. Corpseed works as an end-to-end compliance partner for gold jewellery businesses, handling: BIS hallmarking registration from application to approval Documentation assistance, so your paperwork is accurate the first time Liaison with government and BIS offices on your behalf Application filing for new registrations and renewals Approval tracking, so nothing gets delayed in the pipeline Pan-India support, useful for businesses operating across multiple newly listed districts Dedicated compliance experts who track regulatory updates like this one as they happen. A transparent, step-by-step process with clear timelines Quick turnaround, reducing the time between a new requirement and full compliance Corpseed's Core Message Regulatory updates, such as the Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery and Gold Artefacts (Third Amendment) Order, 2026, move quickly, and non-compliance can lead to penalties, stock issues, and reputational damage. You don't need to track every gazette notification, decode every legal clause, or figure out BIS procedures on your own. Corpseed's regulatory experts monitor these changes as they're published and help businesses move from uncertainty to full compliance without unnecessary delays or risk. If your business deals in gold jewellery or gold artefacts, the smartest move is to confirm your compliance status today, before it becomes a problem tomorrow. Talk to a Corpseed compliance expert now and get clarity on exactly what this order means for your business. Conclusion The Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery and Gold Artefacts (Third Amendment) Order, 2026 has revised the list of areas, on a district-wise basis, where BIS hallmarking is compulsory for gold jewellery and gold artefacts from August 6, 2026 onwards. If your business falls within the newly declared districts, you should confirm that your BIS hallmarking registration is in order and that all your inventory is duly marked. There is no scope for procrastination regarding this obligation, as it is applicable from today onwards. In case there is any doubt in your mind regarding this revision and the process of getting your BIS hallmarking registration and compliance process completed efficiently and effectively, contact the regulatory compliance experts at Corpseed right away for an actionable plan.

Subject

Summary: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has released a consultation paper proposing amendments to the Standards of Quality of Service of Access (Wireline and Wireless) and Broadband (Wireline and Wireless) Service Regulations, 2024. The draft aims to strengthen service quality standards, improve consumer protection, and introduce new quality benchmarks for modern telecom technologies, including 5G networks. Stakeholders are invited to submit their comments on the consultation paper until 26 August 2026. Counter comments are required by 7 September 2026. These amendments, upon notification, shall become effective as of 1 October 2026. Until then, these amendments remain subject only to public consultation and shall not have any legal force. The proposed changes in the draft introduce various QoS (Quality of Service) requirements, including network performance, broadband speed, outage reporting, billing issues, 5G Network Slicing, and compliance reporting. The changes are expected to improve service quality and will require telecom operators to analyze their existing systems upon the rules' promulgation. Key Highlights of the Consultation Paper In the TRAI consultation paper, several alterations have been recommended in the Standards of Quality of Service of Access (Wireline and Wireless) and Broadband (Wireline and Wireless) Service Regulations, 2024. Some of the alterations have been suggested to enable better network monitoring, ensure consumer protection, and update QoS standards in light of developments in 5G technology, among other reasons. Some of the key areas include: Proposes amendments to the QoS Regulations, 2024. Introduces new Quality of Service parameters for telecom networks. Proposes a 98% accuracy benchmark for geospatial coverage maps. Revises broadband speed assessment methodology. Introduces reporting requirements for significant network outages. Proposes consumer compensation for outages exceeding 24 hours. Introduces monitoring requirements for 5G network slicing and PRB utilisation. Revises compliance reporting and financial disincentive provisions. Invites stakeholder comments before finalising the amendments. Why Has TRAI Proposed These Amendments? TRAI has proposed these amendments to align the Quality of Service framework with the changing telecom landscape. The increasing use of 4G, 5G, high-speed broadband, and advanced network technologies has created the need for more accurate performance monitoring and stronger consumer protection measures. Such improvements include greater transparency, higher-quality services, more comprehensive reporting, and, most importantly, quality services for telecom customers across all wireless, wireline, and broadband systems. Improve Network Quality Monitoring The draft amendments propose changes to Quality of Service parameters that can make measuring network performance easier. The amendments introduce new QoS parameters. Support 5G Network Deployment The consultation paper introduces provisions related to Physical Resource Block (PRB) utilisation and network slicing, recognising the operational requirements of 5G services. Service providers planning to deploy new network slices may also be required to submit relevant details to TRAI before implementation. Strengthen Consumer Protection In addition, the aim is to enhance the consumer experience through stringent measures to report network outages and provide compensation. The bill suggests rebates or extended validity for consumers who experience network outages lasting more than 24 hours. Increase Transparency The new changes also intend to enhance transparency of telecom companies by ensuring the publication of geospatially accurate network maps that have been validated through physical/virtual drive tests. Improve Regulatory Compliance The consultation document proposes changes to compliance reporting rules and financial penalties to promote better reporting and the timely submission of regulatory reports. This is done to improve regulatory compliance in the telecommunications sector. Regulatory Background The proposed amendments have been issued under the powers conferred on the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) by Section 36, read with Section 11(1)(b)(i) and 11(1)(b)(v) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. These provisions empower TRAI to frame regulations and prescribe standards for the quality of telecom services nationwide. The amendments seek to revise the Standards of Quality of Service of Access (Wireline and Wireless) and Broadband (Wireline and Wireless) Service Regulations, 2024, which currently prescribe the Quality of Service (QoS) benchmarks that telecom service providers must follow for access and broadband services. The draft proposes updates to these regulations instead of introducing an entirely new regulatory framework. Why Was the Existing Framework Reviewed? The consultation paper explains that the telecom sector has undergone rapid technological changes with the expansion of 4G, 5G, fibre broadband, and advanced network capabilities. As a result, several existing QoS parameters require revision to ensure they continue to measure service quality and accurately reflect current network technologies. What Does the Draft Amendment Cover? Rather than doing away with the 2024 Regulations altogether, the draft contains amendments to certain clauses in the existing regulations. Some of the amendments include: Introduction of new Quality of Service Parameters Revision of performance standards Introduction of new reporting criteria for network outages Introduction of provisions for 5G Network Slicing Introduction of improved consumer protection clauses Revised Compliance Reporting Requirements Financial Incentives Discontinuation Scope and Applicability The proposed amendments apply to telecom service providers offering access and broadband services in India under the Standards of Quality of Service of Access (Wireline and Wireless) and Broadband (Wireline and Wireless) Service Regulations, 2024. They cover multiple technologies, services, and stakeholders across the telecom ecosystem. Stakeholders and Services Covered Category Coverage Under the Draft Amendments Wireless Access Service Providers Subject to revised QoS parameters, network monitoring, outage reporting, and compliance requirements. Wireline Access Service Providers Covered under the proposed Quality of Service amendments for access services. Wireless Broadband Service Providers Required to comply with revised broadband performance and reporting standards. Wireline Broadband Service Providers Covered under updated Quality of Service benchmarks for broadband services. 4G Network Operators Subject to revised speed assessment and network performance requirements. 5G Network Operators Required to monitor PRB utilisation, network slicing, and other technology-specific parameters. Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) Required to comply with revised reporting, monitoring, and consumer protection provisions. Telecom Subscribers Expected to benefit from improved service quality, greater transparency, and enhanced consumer protection. Why Does This Consultation Paper Matter? The proposed amendments represent an important step towards modernising India's telecom Quality of Service framework. As telecom networks continue to evolve with wider 5G deployment, increasing broadband usage, and higher customer expectations, the existing regulatory framework requires periodic updates to remain effective. If implemented, the proposed amendments could: Improve the accuracy of telecom network performance monitoring. Strengthen consumer protection during service disruptions. Increase transparency through reliable coverage maps. Support efficient management of 5G services. Enhance regulatory compliance across telecom operators. Since the amendments are currently under consultation, stakeholders have the opportunity to review the proposals and submit their feedback before the regulations are finalised. Major Proposed Amendments Under the Draft Regulations The draft amendments introduce several new Quality of Service (QoS) measures while revising existing performance benchmarks under the Standards of Quality of Service of Access (Wireline and Wireless) and Broadband (Wireline and Wireless) Service Regulations, 2024. The proposals mainly focus on improving network performance monitoring, strengthening consumer protection, enhancing service transparency, and introducing new compliance requirements for evolving technologies such as 5G. 1. New Quality of Service Parameters According to the consultation paper, there will be additions to some QoS parameters and changes to others. This is done to ensure the telecom network's performance is measured accurately. Some of the major proposed parameters include: Physical Resource Block (PRB) utilisation in 5G networks Silence Call Rate Mean Time-To-Repair (MTTR) Quality of Experience Score (QoES) Revised fault incidence parameter Improved download and upload speed benchmarks Enhanced network outage monitoring These additions reflect the increasing complexity of modern telecom networks and the growing adoption of advanced broadband technologies. 2. Higher Accuracy Requirement for Coverage Maps TRAI has proposed stricter requirements for the geospatial coverage maps published by telecom service providers. Under the draft amendments: Coverage maps published on service providers' websites should achieve at least 98% accuracy. The benchmark will be assessed every month. The proposed requirement is scheduled to take effect from 1 October 2026 if the amendments are notified. To improve reliability, service providers will also need to validate these maps through physical or virtual drive tests, particularly in locations where consumers have reported network-related issues over the past 3 months. 3. Revised Broadband Speed Performance Benchmarks The consultation paper proposes revisions to the way broadband speed performance is measured. Instead of focusing only on declared speeds, the draft introduces technology-specific benchmarks that compare the 80th percentile of measured download and upload speeds with the typical speeds offered under 4G and 5G tariff plans. According to the proposal: Every tariff offering should meet the declared typical download and upload speeds. Performance will be assessed monthly. Different tariff offerings may be grouped only under specified conditions. Each 5G network slice may be evaluated separately where applicable. These changes are intended to improve transparency and ensure that subscribers receive speeds closer to those promised by service providers. 4. Stricter Reporting of Significant Network Outages TRAI has also proposed stronger monitoring requirements for significant network outages. Under the draft amendments, service providers would be required to: Report significant network outages to TRAI within 24 hours from the start of the outage. Monitor outages affecting an entire district or more than 10% of subscribers in a Licensed Service Area for over four continuous hours. Maintain monthly compliance with the reporting benchmark. These proposals seek to improve regulatory oversight while ensuring quicker reporting of major service disruptions. 5. Consumer Rebate for Long Network Outages The draft amendments introduce additional consumer protection measures for prolonged service disruptions. Where a significant network outage continues for more than 24 hours, the proposals provide that. Post-paid subscribers should receive a proportional rent rebate based on the affected period. Pre-paid subscribers should receive an extension of the validity of their subscribed tariff plan for an equivalent number of affected days. These measures are intended to ensure that subscribers receive compensation when prolonged outages affect service availability. 6. New Requirements for 5G Network Slicing One of the most notable additions to the consultation paper concerns 5G network slicing. The draft proposes that: Service providers planning to introduce a new 5G network slice should submit details of both proposed and existing network slices to TRAI. The information should be submitted at least 21 days in advance. Providers should demonstrate that sufficient network capacity is available across different slices. The consultation paper also introduces a new benchmark requiring the percentage of 5G cells with daily Physical Resource Block (PRB) utilisation above 80% to remain within the prescribed limit. These proposals aim to support efficient resource allocation and maintain service quality as 5G networks continue to expand. 7. Introduction of Silence Call Rate Benchmark The discussion paper proposes a new parameter, the Silence Call Rate, for telecommunications. According to the draft amendments, Silence Call Rate should not exceed 1%. The compliance assessment will be conducted monthly. The suggested parameter will come into effect from 1 October 2026, upon notification. It will help improve the quality of voice calls by eliminating silent audio. Old vs Proposed Requirements The following table highlights some of the key changes proposed in the consultation paper. Existing Framework Proposed Amendment Existing QoS parameters under the 2024 Regulations Introduction of additional QoS parameters, including PRB utilisation, Silence Call Rate, MTTR, and QoES Existing coverage map requirements Minimum 98% accuracy with validation through physical or virtual drive tests Existing broadband performance monitoring Speed assessment based on the 80th percentile of measured download and upload speeds Existing outage reporting provisions Reporting of significant network outages to TRAI within 24 hours No specific rebate provision for prolonged outages Consumer compensation through rent rebate or tariff validity extension for outages exceeding 24 hours Existing compliance reporting mechanism Revised reporting requirements and updated compliance framework Proposed Compliance Requirements for Telecom Service Providers If the draft amendments are notified, telecom service providers may need to review their existing compliance systems to align with the revised Quality of Service framework. Some of the key proposed compliance requirements include: Quality Monitoring Service providers may need to monitor newly introduced Quality of Service parameters, including PRB utilisation, Silence Call Rate, Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), and Quality of Experience Score (QoES). Coverage Map Validation Operators would be required to maintain accurate geospatial coverage maps and validate them through physical or virtual drive tests wherever necessary. Broadband Speed Monitoring Telecom operators may need to periodically assess download and upload speeds against the prescribed benchmarks and maintain supporting records for compliance purposes. Outage Reporting The draft requires timely reporting of significant network outages and maintenance of supporting information relating to such incidents. 5G Network Slice Reporting Operators planning new network slices may need to submit advance information to TRAI and demonstrate adequate network capacity before deployment. Consumer Complaint Management The proposed framework also places greater emphasis on resolving customer complaints, maintaining service quality records, and implementing appropriate compensation measures where required. Proposed Financial Disincentives The consultation paper also proposes revisions to the financial disincentive framework applicable to non-compliance with the Quality of Service Regulations. The proposed changes seek to strengthen regulatory enforcement by addressing issues such as: Submission of incorrect or false information  Delay in submission of compliance reports Failure to comply with prescribed Quality of Service benchmarks Other regulatory violations under the amended framework The revised provisions are intended to improve accountability and encourage accurate regulatory reporting by telecom service providers. The detailed financial disincentive mechanism will apply only after the proposed amendments are finalised and notified. Timeline of the Draft Amendments Event Date Consultation Paper Issued 5 August 2026 Last Date for Stakeholder Comments 26 August 2026 Last Date for Counter Comments 7 September 2026 Proposed Effective Date (If Notified) 1 October 2026 Since the amendments are currently under consultation, stakeholders can review the draft proposals and submit feedback before TRAI issues the final regulations. Impact of the Proposed Amendments on Telecom Service Providers The suggested amendments may have a major impact on how telecom service providers monitor network performance, comply with regulations, and provide services to their subscribers. While the amendments are still in the consultative process, operators might have to review their current practices and prepare for any changes if the new regulations are announced. Wireless and Mobile Service Providers The wireless operators might have to enhance their network monitoring practices by including more QoS parameters in their reports, improving the accuracy of their coverage maps, reporting any network disruptions within the required timelines, and ensuring that their performance standards meet the revised benchmarks. Wireline and Broadband Service Providers Broadband providers may be required to evaluate download and upload speeds using the revised assessment methodology proposed in the consultation paper. They may also need to ensure that customers receive service quality consistent with the typical speeds offered under their tariff plans. 5G Network Operators The draft amendments impose new requirements on operators offering 5G services, such as monitoring PRB usage, providing advance notice of the creation of new network slices, and ensuring sufficient network capacity to support different services. Regulatory and Compliance Teams It may be necessary for compliance teams to assess their reporting practices internally and, if the amendments are adopted, improve documentation and record-keeping to submit regulatory reports on time. Benefits of the Proposed Amendments The consultation paper aims to modernise the existing Quality of Service framework while improving accountability across the telecom sector. Some of the expected benefits include: More accurate monitoring of telecom network performance. Improved transparency through reliable geospatial coverage maps. Better assessment of broadband download and upload speeds. Stronger consumer protection during prolonged network outages. Enhanced Quality of Service monitoring for 5G technologies. Improved regulatory reporting and compliance practices. Greater transparency and consistency in service delivery. These proposals seek to balance technological advancements with consumer interests by encouraging telecom operators to maintain higher service quality standards. Operational Challenges for Telecom Operators Telecom operators can face several implementation difficulties if the suggested amendments are adopted, particularly in adjusting their processes to the new QoS criteria. Some of the key challenges may include: Upgrading existing QoS monitoring systems. Validating geospatial coverage maps through physical or virtual drive tests. Measuring additional performance indicators for 5G networks. Maintaining accurate and timely compliance reports. Monitoring network slices and PRB utilisation. Managing consumer compensation for prolonged outages. Strengthening internal audit and documentation processes. The extent of these changes will depend on the final version of the regulations issued after the consultation process. Is This a Positive Regulatory Step or an Additional Compliance Burden? The proposed amendments aim to improve service quality, consumer protection, and regulatory transparency. At the same time, they may require telecom service providers to strengthen their monitoring systems, reporting mechanisms, and compliance processes if the draft regulations are notified. Benefits vs Compliance Challenges Proposed Amendment Regulatory Benefits Compliance Challenges 98% Accurate Coverage Maps Improves transparency and helps subscribers understand actual network availability. Requires regular validation through physical or virtual drive tests and periodic map updates. Technology-wise Broadband Speed Benchmarks Encourages delivery of speeds closer to those promised under tariff plans. Requires continuous speed monitoring, data analysis, and periodic reporting. Significant Network Outage Reporting Strengthens regulatory oversight and improves transparency during major outages. Requires real-time outage detection, documentation, and reporting within prescribed timelines. Consumer Compensation for Long Outages Protects subscribers affected by prolonged service disruptions. Increases operational responsibility for calculating and processing rebates or validity extensions. 5G Network Slicing Requirements Supports efficient network resource allocation and reliable 5G services. Requires advance reporting to TRAI, network capacity planning, and ongoing monitoring. PRB Utilisation Monitoring Helps maintain network capacity and service quality in 5G networks. Requires advanced monitoring tools and periodic performance reporting. Silence Call Rate Benchmark Improves overall voice call quality and customer experience. Requires enhanced voice quality monitoring and network optimisation. Mean Time-To-Repair (MTTR) Encourages faster fault resolution and reduced service downtime. Requires stronger maintenance processes and detailed fault management records. Quality of Experience Score (QoES) Focuses on improving the actual user experience. Requires collection and analysis of additional customer experience data. Enhanced Compliance Reporting Improves regulatory transparency and consistency across operators. Increases documentation, record-keeping, and internal compliance efforts. Revised Financial Disincentive Framework Promotes greater accountability and accurate regulatory reporting. Raises compliance risks and necessitates stronger governance and internal controls. The amendments would help to improve the Quality of Service framework, although the compliance obligations of telecommunication service providers would increase. The overall effect is contingent upon the amendments announced by TRAI following the consultation process. What Should Telecom Service Providers Do Next? Since the amendments are currently under public consultation, telecom service providers should begin evaluating their readiness while monitoring further regulatory developments. Some practical steps include: Consider the consultation paper and proposed modifications. Consider existing QoS Monitoring systems. Find deficiencies in existing compliance procedures. Compare network performance with the proposed standards. Review the outage reporting process and customer complaints system. Consider the preparedness for 5G network slicing and PRB monitoring. Send any comments or suggestions to TRAI before the end of the consultation period. Taking these preparatory steps can help organisations respond more efficiently once the amendments are finalised. How Corpseed Can Help? Staying abreast of changing telecom regulations can be challenging, particularly when evolving QoS standards require additional monitoring and reporting to ensure compliance. Corpseed offers comprehensive regulatory assistance to ensure that telecom service providers comprehend the changing regulations, compliance requirements, and implementation once notification of the amendments is received. Telecom Regulatory Compliance Advisory Corpseed offers advisory on telecom regulations issued by TRAI and helps businesses understand the implications of both current and proposed regulatory requirements. Services include: Interpretation of TRAI regulations and consultation papers Regulatory impact assessment Compliance roadmap preparation Advisory on telecom licensing and regulatory obligations Regulatory Gap Assessment A compliance assessment provides an opportunity to identify any gaps between the existing system and the proposed QoS framework. Assessment covers: Status of Compliance of Existing QoS Processes of Network Monitoring Reporting Processes Consumers’ Grievance Redressal Process Determination of compliance gaps and areas of improvement Compliance Documentation Support It is essential to have proper documentation in accordance with the regulations to prove your compliance status and assist with inspections. Corpseed helps in: Compliance documentation preparation Compliance checklists preparation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) Regulatory Documentation Management Regulatory Reporting Documentation Internal Compliance Reviews and Audit Support Periodic compliance reviews can help businesses identify risks related to their compliance status. Support includes: Internal compliance audits Review of Quality of Service processes Compliance risk identification Corrective action recommendations Audit readiness support Regulatory Interpretation and Implementation Guidance New regulations must always be followed, but the organization may need help implementing them. Corpseed can help you with: Interpreting new QoS parameters introduced Interpreting new regulatory requirements Implementation of regulatory changes Alignment with new regulatory requirements Continuous regulatory assistance Ongoing Compliance Management Regulations governing telecom companies keep changing as technology evolves. Corpseed helps businesses remain compliant continuously. Some of the services provided by Corpseed include: Regular regulatory update notifications Continuous compliance monitoring Assistance with periodic regulatory filings Compliance calendar management Assistance in changing regulatory requirements Whatever the interpretation of the consultation papers, preparedness for compliance, or changing regulatory requirements, Corpseed offers comprehensive services to assist in navigating the ever-changing telecom regulatory landscape in India.