Law Updates

Subject

Summary: The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has brought six Indian Standards into effect across a mix of industries, including steel testing, household and similar electrical appliances, iron ore processing, aviation components, mining equipment and conveyor belts. The notification is dated 1 September 2026 and has been issued under Rule 15(1) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018. The Schedule shows 28 August 2026 as the date on which all six standards were established.  Five of these standards replace older editions. Those older editions have not been withdrawn immediately. BIS has allowed them to remain in force alongside the new standards until 28 February 2027. The only exception is IS 228 (Part 37):2026 / ISO 10280:2025, where the Gazette shows “NA” against both the earlier standard and withdrawal date.  For businesses, the practical work is not simply to note that a standard number has changed. Manufacturers, laboratories and technical teams need to identify whether an older edition is still being used in test methods, specifications, quality records, purchase documents or other technical material. There is another distinction that matters here. This notification establishes and revises Indian Standards. It should not automatically be read as an order making BIS certification compulsory for every product mentioned in the Schedule. BIS Notification at a Glance Particular Details Issuing Authority Bureau of Indian Standards Department Department of Consumer Affairs Document Type Notification Reference Number HQ-PUB013/1/2020-PUB-BIS (1595) Notification Date 1 September 2026 Legal Basis Rule 15(1) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018 Standards Covered 6 Date of Establishment 28 August 2026 Previous Standards Scheduled for Withdrawal 5 Withdrawal Date 28 February 2027 Standard With No Previous Version Listed IS 228 (Part 37):2026 Main Technical Areas Steel analysis, refrigerating appliances, iron ore testing, aviation components, mine equipment and conveyor belts Nature of Update Establishment/revision of standards and scheduled withdrawal of older editions BIS states that the standards shown in the second column of the Schedule were established on the dates shown against them. Where an older standard appears in the fourth column, that earlier standard remains in force concurrently until its withdrawal date in the fifth column.  What Has Actually Changed Under the BIS Notification? The notification does not create one common rule for six similar products. Instead, it deals with six separate technical standards. There are three parts to the change. Six Standards Have Been Established Every standard included in the Schedule carries 28 August 2026 as its establishment date. Five Older Standards Have a Defined Withdrawal Date For five entries, BIS has identified the earlier edition and fixed 28 February 2027 as its withdrawal date. This creates a period in which both the newer standard and the listed older standard remain in force. One Standard Has No Previous Edition Listed for Withdrawal For IS 228 (Part 37):2026 / ISO 10280:2025, the Schedule records “NA” in both the previous-standard and withdrawal-date columns.  That difference should be reflected correctly in any compliance article or internal transition plan. Six Indian Standards Established by BIS in 2026 New Indian Standard Area Covered Revision Status Earlier Standard Earlier Standard Withdrawal IS 228 (Part 37):2026 / ISO 10280:2025 Titanium content in steel No earlier standard shown in Schedule NA NA IS 302 (Part 2/Sec 24):2026 Refrigerating appliances, ice-cream appliances and ice-makers First Revision IS 302-2-24:1994 28 February 2027 IS 8625:2026 Crushing strength of iron ore pellets Second Revision IS 8625-1986 28 February 2027 IS 9748:2026 Metallic slide fasteners for aviation use First Revision IS 9748-1981 28 February 2027 IS 10970:2026 Keps for mine cages First Revision IS 10970-1984 28 February 2027 IS 16384:2026 / ISO 21181:2025 Relaxed elastic modulus of light conveyor belts First Revision IS 16384:2017 / ISO 21181:2013 28 February 2027 The Gazette sets out these six entries together with their establishment dates, revision status and, where applicable, the standards they replace.  Standard-Wise Analysis of the BIS Notification IS 228 (Part 37):2026 / ISO 10280:2025- Titanium Content in Steel The first entry concerns Methods for Chemical Analysis of Steels Part 37 Determination of Titanium Content Diantipyrylmethane Spectrophotometric Method. Put simply, this standard relates to a method used to determine titanium content during the chemical analysis of steel. It was established on 28 August 2026. What makes this entry different from the other five is that BIS has not listed an older Indian Standard for withdrawal. The Schedule records: Earlier standard: NA  Withdrawal date: NA  This may be relevant to steel producers, metallurgical laboratories and businesses whose quality-control or testing documents refer to methods for determining titanium content. The notification itself does not provide the detailed analytical procedure. It does not specify sample preparation, instrument settings, acceptance criteria or test calculations. Those details have to be checked from the full Indian Standard. IS 302 (Part 2/Sec 24):2026- Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice-Makers The second standard is particularly relevant to the electrical-appliance sector. IS 302 (Part 2/Sec 24):2026 covers particular safety requirements for: refrigerating appliances  ice-cream appliances and  ice-makers.  The Gazette identifies it as the First Revision and associates it with IEC 60335-2-24:2025, MOD.  The earlier standard is: IS 302-2-24:1994 Its scheduled withdrawal date is: 28 February 2027.  Manufacturers using the 1994 standard in product files, engineering documents, test instructions or supplier specifications should therefore review those references. The Gazette does not reproduce the actual technical changes made between the 1994 and 2026 editions. Those differences should be checked from the full revised standard before changing designs, test methods or compliance documents. What Does “MOD” Mean Here? The notification itself uses the notation “IEC 60335-2-24:2025, MOD” but does not explain it. In standards terminology, “MOD” is generally used for a modified adoption of an international standard. That means businesses should not assume that the Indian Standard is word-for-word identical to the IEC document. The exact Indian modifications can only be confirmed by reviewing the standard itself. IS 8625:2026- Crushing Strength of Iron Ore Pellets IS 8625:2026 deals with the method used for determining the crushing strength of iron ore pellets. BIS identifies it as the Second Revision. The earlier edition is: IS 8625-1986 It is scheduled to be withdrawn on 28 February 2027.  Businesses most likely to look at this change include: iron ore pellet manufacturers  mineral-processing units  testing laboratories  plant quality teams  procurement teams using the standard in specifications.  If a testing SOP or quality document still cites the 1986 edition, the organisation should identify what has changed in the 2026 version before updating the procedure. The Gazette does not state crushing-strength limits, sample quantities, test apparatus, or pass/fail criteria. Those technical points should not be inferred from the notification alone. IS 9748:2026- Metallic Slide Fasteners for Aviation Purposes IS 9748:2026 is the revised specification for metallic slide fasteners used for aviation purposes. It is the First Revision of: IS 9748-1981 The older edition will remain listed until 28 February 2027, when it is scheduled for withdrawal.  The change may be relevant to: aviation component manufacturers  component suppliers  procurement teams  technical buyers  quality-control functions.  Businesses should check whether the 1981 edition is still mentioned in drawings, purchase specifications or vendor requirements. The BIS notification does not create a new aviation approval process in the text of this Gazette. Any sector-specific approval or certification requirement would need to be examined separately. IS 10970:2026- Keps for Mine Cages The fifth entry is IS 10970:2026 – Keps for Mine Cages Specification. It is the First Revision of: IS 10970-1984 The older edition is scheduled for withdrawal on 28 February 2027.  This standard may matter to mine-equipment manufacturers, suppliers, procurement teams and businesses using equipment covered by the specification. Where the older 1984 edition appears in technical files or procurement documents, those references should be reviewed. Nothing in this particular notification should be used to invent a new mine-safety certification process. The notification deals with the standard and its withdrawal schedule. IS 16384:2026 / ISO 21181:2025- Light Conveyor Belts The final entry covers Light Conveyor Belts Determination of the Relaxed Elastic Modulus. The new reference is: IS 16384:2026 / ISO 21181:2025 It is the First Revision. The previous reference was: IS 16384:2017 / ISO 21181:2013 The earlier edition is scheduled for withdrawal on 28 February 2027.  For conveyor-belt manufacturers and laboratories, the obvious review area is any test or product documentation that still refers to the 2017 edition. The Gazette itself does not explain how relaxed elastic modulus is to be measured or calculated. Those technical requirements belong to the complete standard. Which Older Indian Standards Will Be Withdrawn? The following five standards have a common withdrawal date of 28 February 2027: New Standard Standard Being Withdrawn Withdrawal Date IS 302 (Part 2/Sec 24):2026 IS 302-2-24:1994 28 February 2027 IS 8625:2026 IS 8625-1986 28 February 2027 IS 9748:2026 IS 9748-1981 28 February 2027 IS 10970:2026 IS 10970-1984 28 February 2027 IS 16384:2026 / ISO 21181:2025 IS 16384:2017 / ISO 21181:2013 28 February 2027 The Gazette does not list an earlier standard against IS 228 (Part 37):2026, so there is no withdrawal date shown for that entry.  What Does Concurrent Validity Mean Until 28 February 2027? BIS has not withdrawn the five older standards immediately. The notification says that where an earlier standard is listed, it will remain in force concurrently until the withdrawal date shown in the Schedule.  In practical terms, the position is: the 2026 standard has already been established  the previous edition continues during the overlap period  the previous edition is scheduled for withdrawal on 28 February 2027.  However, businesses should be careful with one point. Concurrent validity in this Gazette does not automatically mean that an organisation can freely choose either edition for every BIS certification, contractual or statutory purpose. A separate: Quality Control Order  certification scheme  purchase specification  customer requirement  tender condition or  sector regulation  may determine which version needs to be followed in a particular case. That issue should be checked before relying on the overlap period. Why Is There a Transition Period? The Gazette does not expressly state why BIS has selected 28 February 2027 as the withdrawal date. It is therefore better not to attribute an official policy reason that the notification does not give. From an operational point of view, however, the overlap does give businesses time to find and review references to the older standards. That review can cover: technical specifications  testing SOPs  laboratory reports  quality manuals  engineering drawings  procurement files  vendor specifications  customer requirements  tenders and contracts.  These are sensible transition steps, but they should not be described as new statutory duties created by this Gazette. Key Dates Businesses Should Keep on Their Compliance Calendar Event Date Why It Matters Six standards established 28 August 2026 The 2026 standards stand established from this date. BIS notification dated 1 September 2026 Date appearing on the BIS notification Gazette issue 8 September 202 Notification published in the relevant Gazette issue Five older standards scheduled for withdrawal 28 February 2027 Previous editions listed in the Schedule reach their withdrawal date. The notification date and the date of establishment are not the same. That distinction matters when a business is updating its internal compliance records.  Which Industries Need to Pay Attention? The notification reaches several unrelated sectors. The level of impact will depend on whether a business actually uses the relevant standard. Steel Manufacturers and Metallurgical Laboratories Relevant standard: IS 228 (Part 37):2026 / ISO 10280:2025 The main area to check is chemical testing documentation dealing with titanium content in steel. Technical teams may need to see whether an existing method, laboratory instruction or customer specification should now refer to the newly established standard. Refrigerating Appliance and Ice-Maker Manufacturers Relevant standard: IS 302 (Part 2/Sec 24):2026 Businesses dealing with refrigerators, ice-cream appliances and ice-makers should check references to IS 302-2-24:1994. Product engineering, quality and compliance teams are likely to be the first functions that need to study the revised edition. Iron Ore Pellet Producers Relevant standard: IS 8625:2026 The revision is particularly relevant where crushing-strength testing forms part of a quality-control or contractual testing arrangement. Companies should locate any remaining references to IS 8625-1986 and check the revised method before replacing existing procedures. Aviation Component Manufacturers and Suppliers Relevant standard: IS 9748:2026 Businesses manufacturing or sourcing metallic slide fasteners for aviation use should review product specifications and procurement documentation that still cites the 1981 edition. Mining Equipment Businesses Relevant standard: IS 10970:2026 Manufacturers, suppliers and users of relevant mine-cage equipment should check whether IS 10970-1984 appears in technical specifications or purchasing documents. Conveyor Belt Manufacturers and Testing Functions Relevant standard: IS 16384:2026 / ISO 21181:2025 Companies using the 2017 edition for light conveyor belt testing should review the newer standard and decide where internal documents need technical updates. Stakeholder-Wise Impact of the BIS Standards Update Stakeholder Likely Area of Impact What Should Be Reviewed Manufacturers Product and technical specifications Old standard references, drawings, test requirements Testing laboratories Test methods and reports SOPs, report templates, standard references Quality teams Internal control documents Inspection plans, test instructions, quality manuals Procurement teams Buying specifications Purchase orders, tenders and vendor conditions Suppliers Customer requirements Product specifications and supporting test documents Importers Indian regulatory references QCO applicability, technical documentation and customer requirements Importers Regulatory position Whether certification or another mandatory requirement applies separately The table reflects practical business areas that may need review. It should not be read as a statement that the Gazette imposes every one of these activities as a statutory obligation. Does This Notification Make BIS Certification Mandatory? This Gazette notification does not, by itself, create one general mandatory BIS certification requirement for all six standards. That distinction is easy to miss. An Indian Standard tells businesses what technical standard has been established. A separate legal instrument may be needed before compliance with that standard becomes compulsory for a particular product. For example, mandatory product compliance may depend on: an applicable Quality Control Order  a compulsory BIS certification requirement  another product-specific regulation  a licensing condition or  a separate statutory direction.  This is why a business should not start a BIS application simply because it sees its product or technical area in a standards notification. The first task is to check the regulatory applicability. Indian Standard, BIS Certification and QCO: What Is the Difference? Term What It Means in Simple Words Indian Standard A technical standard established by BIS Revised Indian Standard An updated edition of an existing standard Withdrawal The older edition stops remaining in force from the stated date BIS Certification A conformity-assessment/certification route where applicable Quality Control Order A separate legal instrument that may make compliance with a specified standard compulsory Mandatory Compliance A legal obligation created under the applicable regulatory framework This difference is especially relevant for manufacturers looking for BIS certification services. Before an application is prepared, the business should first confirm whether certification is actually required for that product. Does the Notification Create a New BIS Licence or Registration Process? No new application process is set out in this notification. The Gazette does not specify: a BIS application form  registration portal  application documents  filing date  approval process  licence validity  renewal procedure.  Businesses should also not treat 28 February 2027 as a common BIS registration deadline. In this notification, the date is connected with the withdrawal of five older standards, not with a universal certification application. Are Any New Fees Mentioned? The notification does not specify: application fees  certification charges  testing fees  licence fees  renewal charges.  Any commercial or regulatory cost will depend on what a particular business actually needs to do. For one manufacturer, the work may be limited to reviewing technical documents. Another product may be covered by a separate mandatory certification regime that requires testing and an application. Those situations should be assessed individually. Does the Notification Introduce Any New Penalty? The Gazette does not prescribe a separate penalty for the establishment or withdrawal of these standards. It does not state a new: fine  imprisonment provision  seizure rule  licence-cancellation rule  import restriction  sales prohibition.  Where another mandatory law or QCO applies, the consequences under that separate framework have to be checked independently. International Standards Referred to in the Notification The Schedule contains three direct international-standard references. Indian Standard International Standard Referred To Area IS 228 (Part 37):2026 ISO 10280:2025 Titanium content in steel IS 302 (Part 2/Sec 24):2026 IEC 60335-2-24:2025, MOD Refrigerating appliances and related equipment IS 16384:2026 ISO 21181:2025 Relaxed elastic modulus of light conveyor belts The previous IS 16384:2017 entry referred to ISO 21181:2013, while the new edition refers to the 2025 ISO standard.  The Gazette does not provide enough detail to claim broader international equivalence beyond these references. Impact on Manufacturers For manufacturers, the most immediate issue is often document control. A standard number may appear in many places inside a business, not just in the regulatory file. For example, it may be written into: product specifications  engineering drawings  quality plans  test instructions  inspection formats  purchase specifications  supplier manuals  technical data sheets  customer documents.  If the business uses one of the five earlier standards, those references should be located before the withdrawal date. What Manufacturers Should Avoid Manufacturers should not automatically: replace every old reference without studying the revised standard  assume all technical requirements remain unchanged  assume BIS certification has become mandatory  treat the withdrawal date as an application deadline  rely on an international standard without checking the Indian adoption.  A controlled review is safer than a blanket document change. Impact on Testing Laboratories and Quality-Control Teams Laboratories can be affected even where there is no new certification filing. If a laboratory currently tests against one of the older standards, it may need to examine: the revised test method  internal SOPs  test report formats  customer instructions  equipment references  quality documentation.  Quality-control teams should also check whether acceptance or inspection documents refer to an old edition. The Gazette itself does not say that a laboratory must change its accreditation scope. Accreditation requirements should be examined under the relevant accreditation framework rather than assumed from this notification. Impact on Procurement and Tender Documents Procurement documents are often overlooked during a standards transition. An old standard can remain written into: purchase orders  tender specifications  vendor qualification forms  supply contracts  technical schedules  material specifications.  If such a document refers to a standard scheduled for withdrawal, the team should review the wording before making a change. A BIS revision does not automatically rewrite an existing contract. The contract, customer requirement and regulatory position need to be looked at together. Impact on Importers and Suppliers The notification itself does not create a new import restriction. Still, importers dealing with the covered products should check whether Indian customer specifications or regulatory documents refer to one of the revised standards. A useful internal check is to ask: Which Indian Standard is written on the current technical file?  Is an older edition still being used?  Does a Quality Control Order cover the product?  Does the supplier's test report refer to another edition?  Does the buyer require a specific Indian Standard?  Is BIS certification separately applicable?  These checks can help prevent a shipment or supply arrangement from being supported by outdated technical documentation. What Manufacturers Should Review Before 28 February 2027 Businesses using the five standards scheduled for withdrawal can take the following practical steps. 1. Find Every Reference to the Older Standard Search internal documents for: IS 302-2-24:1994  IS 8625-1986  IS 9748-1981  IS 10970-1984  IS 16384:2017 / ISO 21181:2013  This gives the business a clear picture of where the transition may matter. 2. Obtain and Study the Revised Standard Do not update a test or product file based only on the Gazette title. The technical team needs the actual revised standard to understand what has changed. 3. Check Testing Documents Look at: SOPs  internal test methods  laboratory reports  inspection formats  acceptance criteria where relevant.  4. Review Purchase and Supplier Requirements Check whether procurement teams or suppliers still work to the old edition. 5. Look at Contracts and Tenders Where an older standard is written into a contract, the commercial and technical teams should review the wording before changing it. 6. Verify Whether Certification Is Separately Mandatory A BIS certification consultant or internal regulatory team can first check whether the specific product falls under a separate mandatory BIS requirement. This avoids beginning a certification process that may not actually apply. 7. Keep the Withdrawal Date Visible For the five revised standards, the relevant withdrawal date is 28 February 2027. Practical BIS Standards Transition Checklist Review Area What to Check Action Standard reference Is an older edition still being used? Identify all affected documents. Product specification Does it cite a standard due for withdrawal? Review against the new edition. Testing Is an old method still referenced? Technical comparison may be needed. Quality documents Are SOPs or inspection forms outdated? Review before revision Procurement Do POs or tenders cite the old standard? Check with technical/procurement teams. Suppliers Are vendors still following the previous edition? Seek clarification where relevant. Certification Is a separate QCO or BIS requirement applicable? Conduct applicability assessment Contracts Is a particular edition contractually required? Review before changing the reference Timeline Is 28 February 2027 being tracked? Add to compliance calendar. What This BIS Notification Does Not Introduce This section is important because standards notifications are often mistaken for certification orders. The Gazette itself does not expressly create: a new BIS registration portal  blanket mandatory certification for all six standards  an application document list  a new application fee  a new certification fee  a licence-validity period  renewal conditions  a new inspection process  a list of testing laboratories  a new standalone penalty  a universal filing deadline.  Its main function is to establish the listed standards and provide the withdrawal position for specified earlier editions. What Are the Practical Benefits of Updated Standards? A revised standard gives businesses a current technical reference, but the actual benefit depends on how the standard is used. Possible practical advantages include: More Current Technical References Businesses can gradually remove obsolete editions from technical files and testing documents. Better Alignment With Newer International References The Gazette expressly links some Indian Standards with newer ISO or IEC editions. Clearer Standard Transition For five standards, businesses know the date on which the previous edition is scheduled for withdrawal. Better Internal Document Control Engineering, quality, procurement and compliance teams can work towards using consistent references rather than different editions across departments. Fewer Outdated References in Procurement Reviewing tenders and purchase specifications can reduce confusion between buyers and suppliers over which standard is being requested. These are practical benefits rather than guaranteed commercial outcomes. Challenges Businesses May Face During the Transition Changing a standard reference can involve more work than editing a number in a document. Understanding What Has Actually Changed A Gazette entry identifies the standard, but it does not reproduce all technical differences between editions. Businesses may need technical experts to compare the documents. Updating Testing Procedures Where test methods have changed, laboratories and quality teams may need to review their internal procedures. Finding Old References Across Departments The same older standard may appear in engineering, quality, procurement and commercial documents. Supplier Coordination Vendors may continue using older specifications unless the buyer communicates the updated requirement clearly. Contractual Issues A contract may expressly name a particular edition. Changing that reference without reviewing the contract could create confusion. No transition cost is stated in the Gazette, so a fixed compliance cost cannot be taken from this notification. Business Opportunities Around Revised BIS Standards Standards revisions can also increase demand for specialised technical and regulatory support. Relevant service areas may include: BIS applicability assessment  standard-gap assessment  technical document review  product regulatory consulting  test-method review  laboratory coordination  compliance gap assessment  product compliance services.  The opportunity is mainly in helping businesses understand what applies and what needs to change. It should not be presented as a compulsory demand for BIS certification because this Gazette, on its own, does not establish that for all six standards. What Businesses Should Monitor Next This notification should not be treated as the final answer to every product-compliance question. Affected businesses may need to continue checking official sources for: BIS amendments  corrigenda  further standard revisions  Quality Control Orders  changes in certification schemes  product-specific regulatory directions.  A new or revised Indian Standard can exist before, alongside or independently of a separate mandatory certification requirement. That is why product-level regulatory checking remains important. What Businesses Should Do Next A practical order for handling the notification is: Priority 1: Check Whether the Standard Is Relevant First identify whether the business manufactures, tests, purchases, imports or supplies something connected with any of the six standards. Priority 2: Locate Older Standard References Find where the old edition appears inside the organisation. Priority 3: Review the 2026 Edition The technical team should compare the revised edition instead of making changes based solely on the notification. Priority 4: Examine Testing and Product Documents Check test procedures, technical files and quality records. Priority 5: Verify Mandatory Compliance Separately Determine whether a QCO, BIS certification requirement or another legal instrument applies. Priority 6: Plan Around 28 February 2027 Where one of the five previous standards is used, keep its withdrawal date visible in the transition plan. How Can Corpseed Help with BIS and Product Compliance? A revised BIS standard raises two different questions for a business. The first is technical: Which standard should be reviewed? The second is regulatory: Does the product actually require mandatory certification or another approval? Corpseed can support businesses through product compliance services, BIS applicability reviews and technical compliance assistance based on the specific product involved. BIS Applicability Assessment Before starting any BIS application, the regulatory position should be checked. Corpseed can help assess: product classification  applicable Indian Standard  whether a Quality Control Order covers the product  whether BIS certification is mandatory  whether certification is voluntary or not applicable  which version of the standard is relevant.  This is particularly useful when a business sees a new BIS notification but is unsure whether it actually creates a filing requirement. BIS Certification Services Where a separate legal requirement makes BIS certification compulsory, Corpseed can assist with the relevant BIS certification services. Support may include: understanding the applicable certification route  application preparation  document review  testing coordination where required  communication and filing support.  The certification route depends on the product and applicable regulation. The six-standard notification itself should not be treated as proof that certification is mandatory. Product Compliance Services Corpseed's product compliance services can help manufacturers and importers look beyond the standard number and understand the wider regulatory position. Support may cover: identifying relevant technical standards  checking regulatory applicability  reviewing technical documentation  identifying compliance gaps  planning further regulatory action.  This is especially useful where several technical, certification or sector-specific requirements may apply to the same product. Technical Compliance Consulting Moving from an older standard to a revised standard can affect more than one department. Through technical compliance consulting, Corpseed can support businesses in reviewing where an older standard is still referenced and which areas should be examined by engineering, testing or quality teams. Compliance Gap Assessment A compliance gap assessment can help identify the difference between the business's current technical references and the updated regulatory position. The review may include: product documentation  test references  internal specifications  procurement documents  supplier records  relevant regulatory requirements.  The purpose is to identify the areas that need attention rather than make unnecessary changes across every document. Testing and Laboratory Coordination Where testing is required under an applicable standard, certification scheme or customer requirement, Corpseed can assist with coordination around the testing process. The actual: test method  test parameters  laboratory requirements and  acceptance criteria  must come from the relevant standard and applicable regulatory framework. Manufacturer and Importer Compliance Support Manufacturers and importers often have to connect technical standards with product-specific legal requirements. Corpseed can assist in checking whether a revised standard affects: existing certification  product documentation  testing  supplier records  import compliance  market-entry requirements.  Businesses that are unsure whether the 2026 BIS standards affect their products can use product compliance services or consult a BIS certification consultant for a product-specific applicability review before beginning a certification or technical transition exercise. Key Takeaways The main point of this notification is straightforward: BIS has established six Indian Standards, while five older standards are scheduled to leave the framework on 28 February 2027. Businesses should focus first on where these standards are actually used inside their operations. All six standards were established on 28 August 2026.  The BIS notification is dated 1 September 2026.  Five older standards are scheduled for withdrawal on 28 February 2027.  IS 228 (Part 37):2026 / ISO 10280:2025 has no earlier standard or withdrawal date listed.  The standards cover six different technical areas rather than one industry.  Businesses should review testing, technical, quality, procurement and supplier documents where an older standard is still used.  The Gazette should not automatically be treated as a blanket mandatory BIS certification order for all six standards.

Subject

Summary: Importers of Glufosinate from China PR have a new DGTR recommendation to watch closely. The Directorate General of Trade Remedies issued its final findings on 1, September 2026 after completing an anti-absorption investigation into imports of Glufosinate and its salts from China PR. DGTR's central finding is that the existing anti-dumping duty of USD 2,998 per metric tonne (MT) was no longer giving the intended remedial effect. After reviewing export prices, import transactions, cost movements and the evidence submitted during the investigation, the Authority recommended increasing the duty to USD 5,004 per MT.  There is, however, an important distinction for importers. The figure of USD 5,004/MT in the DGTR final findings is a recommended revised duty. The final findings themselves say that the modified duty will apply prospectively from the date of a notification to be issued by the Central Government. It should therefore not be treated as automatically effective merely because the DGTR findings were issued on 1 September 2026.  For companies importing, formulating, distributing or using Glufosinate, this means the immediate task is not simply to replace one duty figure with another. Product scope, origin, country of export, tariff classification and the notification actually in force on the relevant import date all need to be checked. DGTR Final Findings at a Glance Particular Details Issuing Authority Directorate General of Trade Remedies Department Department of Commerce Ministry Ministry of Commerce and Industry Document Type Final Findings Case No. AD (AA)- 01/2026 File No. F. No. 7/02/2026-DGTR Date 1 September 2026 Product Glufosinate and its salts Product Form Technical and formulation Subject Country China PR Investigation Type Anti-absorption investigation Existing Anti-Dumping Duty USD 2,998/MT DGTR Recommended Duty USD 5,004/MT Change in Duty Form No Retrospective Application Not recommended Proposed Application Prospective Revised Duty to Apply From Date of Central Government implementing notification Duration Unexpired period of the existing anti-dumping measure The document is an anti-absorption final finding, not another original anti-dumping investigation. That difference explains why DGTR focused heavily on what happened to export prices after the existing duty had already been imposed. Regulatory Background of the Glufosinate Anti-Dumping Duty The 2026 anti-absorption proceeding sits on top of an anti-dumping measure that was already in force. Understanding that sequence makes the latest recommendation much easier to follow. 1. Original Anti-Dumping Investigation The original investigation into imports of Glufosinate and its salts from China PR was initiated through Notification No. 6/19/2024-DGTR dated 29 June 2024. DGTR later issued its final finding under F. No. 6/19/2024-DGTR on 10 February 2025. In that investigation, the Authority recommended an anti-dumping duty for a period of five years. 2. Anti-Dumping Duty Imposed in May 2025 The DGTR recommendation was followed by Ministry of Finance Notification No. 09/2025-Customs (ADD), dated 8 May 2025. The anti-absorption final findings record the duty then in force as: USD 2,998 per MT for the product covered by the measure. The purpose of the 2026 proceeding was therefore not to decide from the beginning whether an anti-dumping duty was required. That question had already been dealt with. Instead, DGTR was asked to examine whether the existing duty was still working as intended. 3. Anti-Absorption Investigation Began in March 2026 On the basis of prima facie evidence submitted by the domestic industry, DGTR initiated an anti-absorption investigation through Notification No. 7/02/2026-DGTR dated 2 March 2026. The purpose was to check whether exporters' pricing had absorbed the existing duty and made it ineffective, and whether the amount or form of the duty needed to be changed. What Is an Anti-Absorption Investigation Under the Anti-Dumping Rules? An anti-dumping duty is imposed to address the effect of dumped imports. But the situation can change after the duty starts. For example, if an exporter sharply reduces its export price after the duty has been imposed without a corresponding fall in its production cost, the economic effect of the duty may be weakened. The exporter may, in practical terms, be taking on part of the duty through lower pricing instead of allowing the measure to affect the landed price in the way originally intended. This is the basic issue examined in an anti-absorption investigation. In this case, the legal framework includes Section 9A(1B) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rules 29 and 30 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. What Rule 29 Does Rule 29 deals with circumstances in which an anti-dumping duty may be considered absorbed. The rule allowed DGTR to examine the movement of export prices after the duty was imposed and compare it with factors such as changes in production cost. If absorption is established, Rule 29(2) allows the Authority to reassess the dumping and injury margins and consider whether the form, basis or quantum of the anti-dumping duty needs modification.  What Rule 30 Does Rule 30 deals with the anti-absorption investigation itself, including initiation and investigation procedures. Where Rule 31 Became Relevant Rule 31 came into the discussion because the domestic industry sought retrospective application of a modified duty. DGTR considered that request but ultimately decided that prospective modification was enough in this case. The important point is that an anti-absorption finding does not arise merely because a price has fallen. DGTR still had to examine whether the fall in export price was proportionate to the change in production cost and whether the existing duty had been weakened. Why Was the Glufosinate Anti-Absorption Investigation Started? The application was filed by Indian producers that DGTR referred to collectively as the domestic industry. The applicants included: Superform Chemistries Limited,  UPL Limited,  Astral Life India Limited,  United Phosphorus (India) LLP,  UPL Sustainable Agri Solutions Limited, and  SWAL Corporation Limited.  Their case was that the anti-dumping duty already imposed on Glufosinate and its salts from China PR was being absorbed.  That was an allegation at the application stage. DGTR did not simply adopt it as a finding. The Authority circulated information, invited responses, collected transaction-wise import data, received submissions from exporters and importers, held a hearing and examined objections before arriving at its own conclusion. What Other Interested Parties Argued A number of objections were raised during the proceeding. Among other things, interested parties questioned: whether there was enough evidence to start the investigation,  whether the investigation period was appropriate,  whether the export-price decline could have resulted from other market factors,  whether the available production-cost information was adequate,  whether the volume imported at lower prices was too small,  whether MIP-related pricing distorted the analysis, and  whether a modified duty could or should apply retrospectively.  Those arguments mattered because they forced the Authority to explain why it considered the evidence sufficient for a finding of absorption. Products Covered by the DGTR Final Findings DGTR did not expand or narrow the product scope in the anti-absorption review. The product remains: Glufosinate and its salts, in both technical and formulation form.  This means the anti-absorption exercise did not create a new product definition. HS Codes Considered by DGTR The Authority considered the following tariff classifications: S. No. HS Code 1 38089193 2 38089199 3 38089391 4 38089399 5 38089912 6 38089991 7 38089999 Why Importers Should Not Rely Only on the HS Code This point deserves attention because tariff codes are often the first thing an importer checks. DGTR clearly says that the customs classification codes mentioned in the investigation are indicative only. They are not binding on the actual scope of the product under consideration.  So a proper applicability review should not stop at the HS code. An importer should also look at: the actual product description,  chemical identity,  technical or formulation form,  product specifications,  country of origin,  country of export, and  wording of the operative anti-dumping notification.  This is one area where import compliance services can be useful, especially where the tariff classification and trade-remedy product description do not line up neatly. Investigation Period and Evidence Considered by DGTR DGTR took January 2025 to September 2025, covering nine months, as the absorption period. For comparison, it used the original period of investigation of 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023.  That approach was challenged by some parties, particularly because a part of the nine-month period fell before the duty was imposed on 8 May 2025. DGTR nevertheless explained that the transactions on which its absorption finding relied occurred after the anti-dumping duty came into force. Information Examined During the Investigation The Authority worked with several types of evidence, including: DG Systems transaction-wise import data,  importer questionnaire responses,  exporter responses,  export-price information,  movement in major raw-material prices,  information submitted by the domestic industry,  China Customs-related pricing evidence placed on record,  oral and written submissions, and  other available information relevant to the investigation.  The DG Systems data was used to assess actual import quantities and transaction values.  Hearing and Disclosure Process DGTR held an oral hearing on 20 May 2026. Interested parties that presented their views were asked to submit them in writing, followed by rejoinders where applicable.  A disclosure statement containing the essential facts relied on for the proposed final determination was issued on 20 August 2026. Interested parties were given until 26 August 2026 to comment. What Did the Import Data Show? The import figures are an important part of the decision because one of the arguments against the investigation was that the relevant lower-priced volume was too small. DG Systems recorded 66 MT of the subject goods during the absorption period. Out of that: 51 MT entered after the anti-dumping duty was imposed on 8 May 2025.  A 5 MT consignment entered under a tariff item outside the coverage of the Minimum Import Price.  The remaining post-duty imports were recorded around the Minimum Import Price level.  Why the 5 MT Consignment Became Important At first glance, 5 MT may appear too small to drive a trade-remedy finding. That was also one of the objections raised during the proceeding. DGTR, however, did not look at the transaction only in terms of its size. The Authority considered it relevant because it was the consignment that entered without the same MIP constraint and therefore offered evidence of the underlying pricing behaviour being examined. Did DGTR Require a Minimum Import Quantity? No minimum volume threshold was identified by the Authority for this Rule 29 finding. DGTR recorded that neither Section 9A(1B) nor Rule 29 prescribed a minimum quantity that must be imported before absorption can be established. Out of 51 MT imported after the duty, the 5 MT lower-priced transaction represented roughly 10%. DGTR nevertheless considered the pricing information relevant to whether the existing duty had been neutralised.  Minimum Import Price vs Anti-Dumping Duty: Why the Difference Matters The final findings discuss both the Minimum Import Price (MIP) and the anti-dumping duty (ADD). They are not the same thing. Minimum Import Price: A Minimum Import Price works through a minimum price condition applicable under the relevant trade-policy framework. During this investigation, most of the covered transactions entered at prices around the MIP. Anti-Dumping Duty: An anti-dumping duty is a trade-remedy levy imposed after the applicable investigation determines dumping, injury and the other legal requirements. For Glufosinate, the existing anti-dumping duty referred to by DGTR was USD 2,998/MT. Why MIP-Compliant Imports Could Still Be Examined One argument was that imports entering around the MIP should not support an absorption finding. DGTR took a different view. The Authority treated MIP and ADD as separate measures. Compliance with the MIP did not, by itself, prevent DGTR from looking at actual export-pricing behaviour or asking whether the anti-dumping duty was still effective.  For importers, this distinction is useful beyond this one case. A shipment may need to be reviewed against more than one trade-control requirement at the same time. How Did DGTR Determine That the Existing Duty Had Been Absorbed? This is the core of the final findings. DGTR compared the decline in export prices with the movement in the cost indicator available for the investigation. The two did not move anywhere close to the same extent. 1. Decline in Export Price DGTR found that the export price of the subject goods to India had fallen by approximately 46% after the anti-dumping duty was imposed. The Authority considered the decline in US dollar terms as well as Indian rupee terms. It therefore did not accept the argument that the fall could be explained simply by movement in the exchange rate. 2. What Happened to Raw-Material Prices? The participating exporters had not claimed market-economy treatment and did not provide cost information in a form that DGTR considered verifiable for the relevant exercise. The Authority therefore used the movement in prices of major raw materials as a surrogate for the change in production cost. That analysis indicated a decline of approximately 7.4%. Export Price Fell Much Faster Than the Cost Proxy The comparison looked like this: Factor Examined Movement Recorded by DGTR Export price to India Approx. 46% decline Major raw-material price proxy Approx. 7.4% decline Were the two movements considered commensurate? No Result under Rule 29(1) Absorption condition found satisfied In straightforward terms, DGTR found that the selling price to India had fallen far more sharply than the cost proxy used in the investigation. It therefore concluded that the decline in export price was not commensurate with the change in production cost. DGTR's Rule 29 Finding Once DGTR found the first limb of Rule 29(1) satisfied, it concluded that the measure had been absorbed. That did not end the exercise. The Authority then had to reassess the dumping and injury margins to decide what modification, if any, was appropriate. What Did DGTR Find About Third-Country Prices and Indian Resale Prices? DGTR did not find absorption independently under every pricing test discussed during the investigation. That is an important detail because the final conclusion rests mainly on the export-price-versus-cost analysis. Third-Country Export Prices Some interested parties argued that prices to other countries had also fallen and that the price movement was therefore not unique to India. DGTR recorded that the participating exporters did not provide transaction-wise third-country export data to substantiate that position. The final finding did not need to depend on this limb because the Authority had already found the first limb of Rule 29(1) satisfied. Resale Prices in India Two importers supplied information on resale of the imported goods in India. Based on the information available, DGTR found that resale prices were above the corresponding landed values and did not show a clear declining trend during the absorption period. The resale data also did not cover the specific 5 MT consignment discussed earlier because the importer involved in that transaction did not participate in the investigation.  DGTR therefore did not say that the resale-price limb independently proved absorption. Its final conclusion rests on the first limb: the mismatch between the fall in export price and the change in the production-cost proxy. DGTR's Reassessment of Dumping Margin and Injury Margin A finding of absorption led to another calculation. Under Rule 29(2), DGTR reassessed the dumping and injury margins and made relevant adjustments to the values used in the original investigation. 1. Reassessment of Constructed Normal Value The participating Chinese exporters had not claimed market-economy treatment. DGTR therefore followed the methodology adopted in the original investigation for constructed normal value. 2. Reassessment of Non-Injurious Price The Non-Injurious Price, or NIP, is used to assess the price level relevant to removing injury suffered by the domestic industry under the anti-dumping methodology. For the absorption period, DGTR reassessed the NIP in accordance with the applicable rules. The document states that the reassessed NIP was approximately 14% below the NIP used in the original investigation, largely because of an approximately 19% reduction in raw-material cost in that particular NIP reassessment.  This figure should not be mixed up with the 7.4% major raw-material price decline used as a surrogate in the separate absorption analysis. They appear in different parts of DGTR's examination. 3. Change in Dumping Margin DGTR recorded: Original period: 20-30%  Absorption period: 85-95%  4. Change in Injury Margin The injury margin also moved from: Original period: 20-30%  Absorption period: 85-95%  The exact confidential values behind some calculations were not disclosed, but the ranges were published in the findings.  Key Investigation Findings Parameter Original / Earlier Position Absorption-Period Finding Export-price movement Benchmark from original POI Approx. 46% decline Major raw-material proxy Original benchmark Approx. 7.4% decline Dumping margin 20-30% 85-95% Injury margin 20-30% 85-95% Existing duty considered effective? Originally imposed as remedy DGTR found it had become ineffective Rule 29 absorption finding - Yes What Did DGTR Finally Conclude? DGTR's conclusion brings together the different strands of the investigation. The Authority found that: the anti-absorption investigation had been initiated on the application of domestic producers under Rule 30,  the product scope remained the same as in the original case,  the original findings on domestic-industry standing, injury and causal link were not reopened,  66 MT was imported during the absorption period,  51 MT of that volume entered after the ADD was imposed,  the export price declined by approximately 46%,  the relevant major raw-material proxy declined by only about 7.4%,  the difference between those movements was not considered commensurate,  the first limb of Rule 29(1) was therefore satisfied,  dumping and injury margins increased substantially on reassessment, and  the existing anti-dumping duty had been rendered ineffective.  On that basis, DGTR recommended changing the quantum, rather than the form, of the duty. Existing vs Recommended Anti-Dumping Duty on Glufosinate Compliance Area Existing Position DGTR Recommendation What It Means Duty amount USD 2,998/MT USD 5,004/MT Higher quantum recommended Duty form/typ Existing specific form No change Form stays the same Product Glufosinate and its salts No change Same product coverage Forms covered Technical and formulation No change Existing scope continues Retrospective application - Not recommended Revised rate is not proposed to be backdated Commencement Existing rate already imposed On Central Government notification Final findings alone do not activate USD 5,004/MT Duration Existing five-year measure Remaining period only No fresh five-year period starts DGTR's duty table specifies a recommended amount of USD 5,004 per MT.  What Has Changed and What Has Not Changed? The main recommended change is straightforward: Existing duty: USD 2,998/MT Recommended duty: USD 5,004/MT DGTR is therefore recommending a higher duty amount after finding that the existing measure had been absorbed. What Does Not Change A number of things remain as they were: The type/form of duty is not being changed.  Product coverage remains Glufosinate and its salts.  Both technical and formulation forms continue within the scope.  The revised amount is not recommended retrospectively.  The modification is intended to apply only for the remaining part of the original duty period.  DGTR expressly says that the existing form/type will remain unchanged and only the quantum will be modified. Is the USD 5,004/MT Anti-Dumping Duty Already Effective? The DGTR final findings do not make USD 5,004/MT operative merely by recommending it. This is one of the most important points for importers to understand. DGTR has recommended the revised figure. The final findings say that the modified duty will take effect prospectively from the date of the notification to be issued by the Central Government.  DGTR's Role DGTR: conducts the trade-remedy investigation,  examines the evidence,  reaches the final finding, and  recommends the appropriate measure.  Central Government's Role The operative duty is given effect through the relevant government/customs notification. So, an importer preparing a Bill of Entry should not simply take the latest DGTR recommendation and assume that is the payable rate. The better approach is to check: the DGTR findings,  the implementing customs notification,  the effective date mentioned in that notification, and  the facts of the particular consignment.  This is also why a proper import compliance review should focus on the notification that has legal effect, not only the investigation report. Why Did DGTR Reject Retrospective Application? The domestic industry had asked for the modified duty to operate retrospectively. DGTR considered the request but did not accept it. Rule 31 Allowed the Question to Be Considered The Authority did not say that retrospective application was legally unavailable. Instead, it explained that Rule 31 enables retrospective treatment but does not make it compulsory. The question was therefore one of discretion in the facts of the case.  Why Prospective Application Was Considered Enough DGTR viewed the anti-absorption review as remedial rather than penal. The Authority recorded that during the review: the goods generally entered at declared values around the MIP,  the duty then applicable had been borne, and  no decline in resale prices in India had been established.  On this basis, DGTR considered a prospective change sufficient to restore the remedial effect of the duty. What Happens to Provisionally Assessed Imports? The final findings also deal with imports that had been subjected to provisional assessment under Rule 30(5). DGTR states that those imports should be finally assessed at the rate of duty that was in force during the relevant period.  This is another reason businesses should not apply USD 5,004/MT retrospectively to older imports without an operative legal basis. When Will the Modified Duty Take Effect and How Long Will It Remain? DGTR's recommendation contains two separate timing points. Commencement: The revised duty is intended to take effect: prospectively from the date of the Central Government notification issued for this purpose. Duration: The modified rate is intended to remain in force only for the: unexpired period of the anti-dumping duty imposed through Notification No. 09/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 8 May 2025.  That means the recommendation does not start a new five-year period from 1 September 2026. How Does the Recommended Duty Apply by Country of Origin and Export? The duty table is not limited to a direct shipment where both origin and export are China PR. DGTR recommends the following structure: Country of Origin Country of Export Producer Recommended Duty China PR Any country, including China PR Any USD 5,004/MT Any country other than China PR China PR Any USD 5,004/MT For businesses, this makes country-of-origin verification and export-route documentation especially relevant. A shipment routed through another country should not automatically be assumed to fall outside the trade-remedy measure. At the same time, businesses should not infer additional origin rules that are not stated in the official notification. Timeline of the Glufosinate Anti-Dumping and Anti-Absorption Proceedings The key dates in the proceedings are set out below, from the original investigation to the final anti-absorption findings. Date Event Why It Matters 29 June 2024 Original anti-dumping investigation initiated Original investigation began 10 February 2025 DGTR issued original final findings ADD recommended 8 May 2025 Notification No. 09/2025-Customs (ADD) issued USD 2,998/MT imposed 2 March 2026 Anti-absorption investigation initiated Existing duty came under review 20 May 2026 Oral hearing held Interested parties presented their position 20 August 2026 Disclosure statement issued Essential facts shared before final findings 26 August 2026 Time allowed for disclosure comments Interested-party comments considered 1 September 2026 Final anti-absorption findings DGTR recommends USD 5,004/MT Implementing notification date Central Government action Revised duty becomes prospectively operative The hearing and disclosure dates are recorded in the final findings. Impact on Businesses The effects will not be identical for every stakeholder. An importer bringing finished formulation into India faces a different commercial question from a domestic manufacturer buying technical Glufosinate as an input. Impact on Indian Importers Importers need to pay close attention to the rate legally applicable on the date relevant to their import. Once the revised amount is implemented, businesses dealing in covered imports may face: a higher landed cost,  changes in purchase budgets,  a need to revisit supplier quotations,  tighter scrutiny of product descriptions and classification,  closer origin checks, and  changes in inventory planning.  A higher recommended duty does not itself tell an importer what amount must be paid on every shipment. The operative customs notification and transaction details still matter. Impact on Agrochemical Manufacturers and Formulators Manufacturers or formulators using imported Glufosinate may need to look at their sourcing mix. Possible commercial questions include: How much material comes from China PR?  Is the business dependent on one supplier?  Are alternative domestic or overseas sources available?  Will existing purchase contracts absorb a duty change?  Does the finished-product price need to be reviewed if input costs rise?  These are business implications rather than fresh statutory duties imposed by the final findings. Impact on Domestic Producers For Indian producers, the recommendation is meant to restore the effect of the existing anti-dumping measure after DGTR found absorption. That does not guarantee higher sales, better margins or any particular market outcome. Those results depend on demand, supply, pricing and other commercial factors. Impact on Distributors and Traders Distributors holding old stock and arranging new purchases may have to distinguish between: inventory imported under the existing duty position, and  future consignments potentially covered by the revised rate.  That distinction can influence quotations, margins and customer pricing. Impact on Farmers and Other Downstream Users The effect on end users was debated during the proceeding. Different interested parties took different positions on the likely downstream cost. Those submissions should not be converted into a guaranteed retail-price increase or a fixed per-acre impact. The final duty's actual commercial effect will depend on how manufacturers, importers, formulators and distributors respond. Does the Decision Affect Existing Import Contracts or Shipments? Possibly, but the answer depends on the contract and shipment. Businesses should avoid assuming that every existing agreement needs amendment. Instead, check the commercial terms. Shipment Details to Review shipment date,  Bill of Entry details,  product description,  tariff classification,  country of origin,  country of export, and  applicable notification on the relevant date.  Contract Terms to Review Check whether the agreement says who bears: customs duty,  anti-dumping duty,  changes in statutory levies,  additional landed costs, and  post-contract changes in government charges.  Pricing to Review A business may also need to revisit: landed-cost calculations,  supplier quotations,  inventory valuation,  resale pricing, and  procurement budgets.  There is no basis in the DGTR final findings for saying that every existing contract must automatically be renegotiated. What Should Glufosinate Importers Review Now? Importers can use the following as an internal review checklist. Confirm the Product: Check whether the imported goods actually fall within the scope of Glufosinate and its salts. Check the Form: Identify whether the goods are: technical material, or  formulation.      Both forms are within the DGTR product scope. Review the HS Classification: Verify the tariff classification used in the import documents.      Do not use the HS code as the only test because DGTR says the listed classifications are indicative. Verify Country of Origin: Check origin documents carefully.     This becomes particularly relevant where goods move through more than one jurisdiction. Check Country of Export: Country of export also appears in DGTR's recommended duty table. Identify the Notification Actually in Force: Before finalising the duty amount, verify the operative customs notification applicable on the relevant date. Review Landed-Cost Calculations: If the revised rate becomes effective, update procurement and pricing calculations accordingly. Examine Current Contracts: Check which party bears changes in anti-dumping or customs duties. Review Import Documentation: Bills of Entry, invoices, origin documents and product descriptions should tell a consistent story. Keep Regulatory Monitoring Active: Businesses making repeat imports should track further official developments instead of checking the position only when a consignment reaches Customs. Key Compliance Risks for Glufosinate Importers Importers should watch for the following compliance issues when dealing with Glufosinate shipments. Assuming USD 5,004/MT Is Automatically Payable: A DGTR recommendation and an operative customs levy are not the same stage.     The final findings link commencement of the modified rate to a Central Government notification. Checking Only the HS Code: A tariff code helps with classification, but DGTR itself says the listed codes are not binding on product scope. Treating MIP and ADD as the Same Requirement: The final findings treat them as separate measures.     Compliance with an MIP condition does not automatically settle anti-dumping duty applicability. Ignoring Country of Export: Origin is not the only field shown in the recommended duty table. The export route also matters. Using an Outdated Duty Rate: Import teams should confirm the notification in force rather than relying on an old internal rate sheet. Assuming the Revised Duty Starts a New Five-Year Period: DGTR specifically recommends application only for the unexpired part of the existing measure. Benefits and Challenges of the Revised Trade-Remedy Approach There are two sides to the recommendation, depending on where a business sits in the supply chain. 1. Regulatory and Domestic-Industry Perspective From DGTR's perspective, the purpose of the recommendation is to restore the effect of a trade-remedy measure that the Authority found had been absorbed. The Authority's evidence showed a much larger decline in export price than in the relevant cost proxy. Increasing the duty quantum therefore became the recommended response while leaving the rest of the measure largely intact. Potential advantages of this approach include: retaining the existing product scope,  avoiding a complete redesign of the duty structure,  responding directly to the pricing behaviour identified in the review, and  keeping the modified measure tied to the balance of the existing duty period.  2. Importer and Downstream-Business Perspective Importers may see the same recommendation differently. A higher duty, once operative, can affect: landed cost,  working capital,  procurement budgets,  supplier negotiations,  formulation costs, and  downstream pricing decisions.  Businesses also need to manage the timing carefully because the recommended rate and operative rate should not be confused. Business Opportunities and Commercial Implications The development may lead businesses to review sourcing rather than simply accept higher import costs without analysis. Possible areas to examine include: Domestic Sourcing: Manufacturers and formulators may review whether suitable material can be sourced domestically. Alternative Overseas Suppliers: Companies may assess suppliers from other markets where commercially and legally suitable.     Any decision must still account for the country-of-origin and country-of-export rules applicable to the measure. Better Supply Diversification: Businesses dependent on a single source may consider spreading procurement across multiple lawful suppliers. Stronger Import Controls: A duty change often exposes weaknesses in: tariff classification,  origin verification,  documentation, and  internal regulatory monitoring.  Improving these controls can reduce uncertainty in future shipments. Alternative sourcing must be genuine. False origin declarations, artificial routing or trans-shipment intended to avoid a lawful duty can create serious customs risks. Can the DGTR Final Findings Be Appealed? The final findings state that an appeal against the order of the Authority arising from the findings lies before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act.  The final-finding passage does not itself set out a separate appeal timeline or detailed filing process. Those points should be checked against the applicable legal provisions before any appeal is planned. How Can Corpseed Help Glufosinate Importers and Agrochemical Businesses? A trade-remedy update can look simple when reduced to one duty figure. In practice, an importer may need to answer several questions before that figure can be used: Is the product covered? Is the classification correct? What is the origin? Where was it exported from? Which notification is currently operative? Corpseed can support businesses through import compliance services, customs-related regulatory reviews and product-specific compliance assessments. 1. Anti-Dumping Duty Applicability Assessment Before using an anti-dumping rate, businesses need to know whether the goods actually fall within the measure. Corpseed can assist with reviewing: product description,  technical specifications,  technical or formulation status,  tariff classification,  country of origin,  country of export, and  relevant anti-dumping notification.  This can help an importer avoid making a duty decision on the basis of an HS code alone. 2. Import Compliance Services Corpseed's import compliance services can support businesses that need to examine the regulatory position before a shipment is filed or a long-term purchase is planned. The review may cover: applicable import regulations,  trade-remedy notifications,  tariff classification,  origin information,  commercial documentation, and  internal import records.  The exact scope should depend on the product, and transaction rather than a generic checklist. 3. Customs Classification Review The Glufosinate final findings themselves make clear that the HS codes are indicative. That makes a product-specific customs classification review useful where the tariff code or product description is uncertain. Corpseed can assist businesses in reviewing available product documents and classification information before the importer takes a final position. 4. Country-of-Origin and Export Documentation Review The recommended duty table looks at both origin and export country. Corpseed can support businesses in reviewing documents such as: commercial invoices,  origin information,  product descriptions,  supplier documents, and  other supporting import records.  The aim is to identify inconsistencies before they become part of the customs filing. 5. Regulatory Notification Monitoring DGTR's final finding and the notification that gives effect to a revised duty perform different functions. For businesses making repeat imports, monitoring official regulatory changes can be as important as checking the original investigation. Corpseed can support businesses in tracking relevant developments from authorities such as: DGTR,  Ministry of Finance,  CBIC, and  the Official Gazette.   6. Compliance Gap Assessment A compliance gap assessment can look at how the business currently handles imports and where its process needs attention. The review may cover: classification controls,  origin checks,  notification verification,  document consistency,  landed-cost approvals, and  coordination between procurement, finance and compliance teams. 7. Customs Compliance Consulting Businesses dealing with multiple imported chemicals often face more than one regulatory issue at a time. Through customs compliance consulting, Corpseed can assist with reviewing the customs and trade-compliance position connected with the product, transaction and applicable government notifications. 8. Ongoing Import Regulatory Support For regular importers, checking compliance only when goods arrive at the port can be too late for good commercial planning. Ongoing support can help procurement and compliance teams identify regulatory changes before they finalise supplier contracts, pricing or shipping arrangements. Businesses importing Glufosinate, agrochemicals or other regulated products can use Corpseed's import compliance services to review the applicable regulatory position, documentation and trade-remedy requirements before making import or pricing decisions. Key Takeaways DGTR's final findings do not simply replace USD 2,998 with USD 5,004. They explain why the Authority found that the existing duty had lost its intended effect and why it considered an increase in the duty necessary. DGTR issued the anti-absorption final findings on 1 September 2026.  The investigation covers Glufosinate and its salts from China PR, in technical and formulation form.  The existing ADD referred to by DGTR is USD 2,998/MT.  DGTR found the export price had fallen by around 46% after imposition of the duty.  The major raw-material proxy used in the absorption analysis fell by about 7.4%.  DGTR concluded that the price decline was not commensurate with the change in production cost.  The Authority recommended increasing the duty to USD 5,004/MT.  The form of the duty remains unchanged.  Retrospective application was considered but not recommended.  The modified duty is intended to operate prospectively from the relevant Central Government notification.  It will continue only for the unexpired portion of the existing anti-dumping duty period

Subject

Summary: Punjab's recent thermal power-generation concerns cannot be explained simply by saying that the State does not have enough coal. That is the central point made by the Ministry of Coal in its press release dated 13 September 2026. According to the Ministry, adequate coal has been made available to Punjab's power plants. The more pressing issue is how much of that coal is actually being lifted, transported and used, along with how efficiently the generating plants themselves are operating.  The clarification covers both Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) plants and private Independent Power Producers (IPPs) such as Nabha Power Limited and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited. It also brings an important distinction into the discussion: coal may be available at a mine or offered by Coal India Limited, but electricity is generated only after that coal is booked, lifted, delivered to the plant and used in generating units that are actually operational. That difference explains much of the Ministry's position. Press Release at a Glance Particular Details Issuing Authority Ministry of Coal, Government of India Publication Platform Press Information Bureau Date 13 September 2026 Nature of Document Government press release and operational clarification State Concerned Punjab Main Subject Coal availability and thermal power generation Main Organisations PSPCL, CIL, NPL, TSPL, CCL and BCCL Main Government Position Adequate coal has been made available to Punjab power plants Main Concern Highlighted Timely lifting of coal and better utilisation of captive coal Other Issue Highlighted Plant Load Factor and breakdowns at IPPs New Legal Compliance Created? The press release creates no new statutory compliance requirement This is therefore not a new regulation or compliance notification. It is mainly an official explanation of the coal-supply and power-generation position in Punjab.  What Has the Ministry of Coal Actually Said About Punjab's Coal Supply? The Ministry's message is not that every electricity-related problem in Punjab has disappeared. Its position is narrower. It says that inadequate coal availability does not fully explain lower generation from Punjab's thermal power plants. The Ministry has supported this position with figures relating to: coal supplied to Nabha Power Limited  coal supplied to Talwandi Sabo Power Limited  coal available at PSPCL plants  production and dispatch from the Pachhwara Central Coal Mine  additional coal offered by CIL subsidiaries and  the operating performance of PSPCL's generating stations.  Taken together, these figures suggest that the problem is not merely about getting more coal allocated. Is Punjab Facing a Coal Shortage? Based on this particular Ministry of Coal release, it would not be correct to describe the situation simply as a shortage of coal at Punjab's power plants. The Ministry says adequate coal has been made available. That does not mean coal logistics can be ignored. In fact, the release repeatedly draws attention to the difference between coal being available and coal being physically lifted by the power producer.  Coal Availability and Coal Utilisation Are Different Suppose a CIL subsidiary has offered coal. That only establishes availability. The power producer must still: book the available quantity  arrange lifting  move the coal through the required transport route  receive it at the generating station and  run the generating unit efficiently.  A gap at any of these stages can reduce the practical benefit of the coal already available. This is why the Ministry's release spends considerable attention on lifting and dispatch rather than discussing allocation alone. Why Did the Ministry Issue the Clarification? The release was issued after media reports linked reduced electricity generation in Punjab with thermal plant outages and insufficient coal availability. The Ministry's response was that this did not show the complete picture. Its clarification separates two different questions: Is enough coal being made available? and Is that available coal being lifted and converted into electricity efficiently? The Ministry believes the first issue has largely been addressed through existing supplies and additional coal offers. Its concern is more closely linked with the second. This distinction also helps explain why the release discusses coal lying at the Pachhwara mine, coal offered but not fully lifted by IPPs and relatively low utilisation of PSPCL's generating capacity. How Is the Central Government Supporting Punjab's Coal Supply? The Government has referred to more than one route through which coal is being made available to Punjab's power sector. These include PSPCL's captive coal mine as well as coal supplied or offered through subsidiaries of Coal India Limited (CIL). Supply from PSPCL's Pachhwara Central Coal Mine PSPCL has access to coal from the Pachhwara Central Coal Mine. The Central Government has also enabled coal from this mine to be moved to Punjab's IPPs, subject to the conditions stated in the release, including fulfilment of the statutory payment obligation to the State of Jharkhand.  That means coal from the captive mine can play a wider role in supporting generation in Punjab, but its use remains subject to the applicable conditions. Use of Pachhwara Coal by IPPs The release refers specifically to: Nabha Power Limited at Rajpura, and  Talwandi Sabo Power Limited at Mansa.  According to the Ministry, these IPPs, though not owned by PSPCL, are permitted to use Pachhwara coal up to 50% of annual production, after meeting the requirements of the specified end-use plants.  The 50% figure should therefore not be read as unconditional access to half of all production. The needs of the specified end-use plants remain relevant. Coal India Limited's Role CIL and its subsidiaries continue to supply and offer coal to Punjab's IPPs. The Ministry specifically mentions: Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and  Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL).  The figures in the release show that coal has been made available through these companies, but the full quantity offered has not always been booked or lifted. That gap is one of the Ministry's main concerns. What Is the Coal Supply Position of NPL and TSPL? The recent supply figures presented by the Ministry show coal arriving at a rate higher than the stated average consumption of both major IPPs. Power Plant Average Consumption Recent Rake Supply September Average Supply Nabha Power Limited Around 4.3 rakes/day Around 5 rakes/day Around 4.9 rakes/day Talwandi Sabo Power Limited Around 3.8 rakes/day Around 5 rakes/day Around 4.1 rakes/day A coal rake broadly refers to a train formation used for transporting coal. The comparison is useful because it tells us whether coal is arriving at a rate broadly sufficient to cover the fuel being consumed. Nabha Power Limited The Ministry states that NPL's average coal consumption over the previous three days was around 4.3 rakes per day. Against this, rake supply averaged around 5 rakes per day. The average supply during September 2026, up to the period covered by the release, was around 4.9 rakes per day. On the figures given by the Ministry, coal supply was therefore above NPL's stated average consumption. Talwandi Sabo Power Limited For TSPL, average coal consumption was around 3.8 rakes per day. The recent supply level was again around 5 rakes per day. The September average stood at around 4.1 rakes per day. The Ministry therefore uses both NPL and TSPL figures to support its statement that the IPPs were receiving coal at levels above their reported average consumption.  Why Does Timely Coal Lifting Matter So Much? This is probably the most important part of the Ministry's clarification. A coal allocation does not automatically mean that the coal has reached the thermal plant. There are several steps in between. 1. Coal Offered This is the quantity the supplier has made available to the buyer under the relevant arrangement. 2. Coal Booked This is the part of the available quantity against which the buyer has made the necessary booking or scheduling arrangement. 3. Coal Lifted This is the coal that has actually been moved from the supplying source. The differences may sound technical, but they matter. A company may have 5 lakh tonnes offered to it while lifting a much smaller quantity. In that situation, the existence of the offer does not immediately increase the fuel stock at the generating station. Coal Offered vs. Booked vs. Lifted The Ministry's figures show this difference clearly. Supplier Recipient Coal Offered/Allocated Booked Lifted Position CCL NPL and TSPL 5.0 lakh tonnes About 4.1 lakh tonnes About 3.2 lakh tonnes Part of the offered quantity is still not lifted BCCL NPL 3.5 lakh tonnes About 1.7 lakh tonnes About 1.1 lakh tonnes Lifting below offer and booking BCCL NPL 2.30 lakh tonnes Not stated Yet to commence Lifting below offer and booking CCL TSPL 3.0 lakh tonnes Not stated Yet to commence Additional Q2 These numbers make the Ministry's argument easier to understand. The discussion is not only about whether coal exists. It is also about whether available coal is moving quickly enough towards the power plants.  What Is Happening at Pachhwara Central Coal Mine? The Pachhwara figures tell a similar story. Coal production at the mine was progressing faster than dispatch. For the period from April 2026 to 11 September 2026, the release gives the following position: Indicator Reported Position Production against annual target 83.67% Dispatch against target 68.44% Unevacuated coal stock Around 3.21 lakh tonnes Period April 2026 to 11 September 2026 Production Is Not the Same as Dispatch Production tells us how much coal is being mined. Dispatch tells us how much coal has actually moved out of the mine. The gap between the two figures is therefore important. Pachhwara had reached 83.67% of its annual production target, while dispatch stood at 68.44% of the relevant target. This meant coal was accumulating at the mine faster than it was being moved out.  Around 3.21 Lakh Tonnes Was Still at the Mine The Ministry puts the unevacuated stock at around 3.21 lakh tonnes. From the Ministry's perspective, the State needs to move more of this stock so that it can contribute to electricity generation. The figure is particularly relevant because it shows why simply increasing mine production does not solve the entire problem. Coal has to leave the mine. Better Use of Captive Coal PSPCL's captive source can support the State's thermal power system, but that value depends on actual evacuation and use. Higher production with slower dispatch means part of the available resource remains physically separated from the generating stations that need it. This is why the Ministry places so much emphasis on improving offtake. What Is the Coal Stock Position at PSPCL's Power Plants? The Ministry has also examined the coal that was already available at PSPCL's generating stations. The release refers to three PSPCL thermal plants: Guru Hargobind Thermal Plant at Lehra Mohabbat  Goindwal Sahib Thermal Power Plant and  Ropar Thermal Power Station.  Their combined capacity is stated to be 2,300 MW. Parameter Ministry's Reported Position Number of PSPCL thermal plants referred to 3 Combined capacity 2,300 MW Coal stock on 11 September 2026 Around 114% of normative requirement Coal stock on 11 September 2026 Around 59% What Does 114% of Normative Stock Mean? The Ministry says coal stock at PSPCL's plants stood at around 114% of the normative requirement. In simple terms, the available stock was above the benchmark level referred to for coal availability. This does not mean each plant necessarily had exactly 114%. The figure should be understood in the way the Ministry presents it: as the overall stock position across PSPCL's plants. The number is important because it weakens the argument that these plants were generating less simply because they had insufficient coal at the plant end.  Why Was Generation Low Even When Coal Stock Was Adequate? The Ministry points to another figure: Plant Load Factor, or PLF. The tentative PLF of PSPCL's thermal plants during September 2026 was around 59%. That tells a different part of the story. What Is Plant Load Factor? Plant Load Factor shows how much electricity a generating station actually produced compared with how much it could theoretically have produced at full capacity over the same period. A plant with adequate coal can still have a low PLF. Why? Because fuel availability is only one part of the operating equation. If generating units are unavailable, suffer breakdowns or operate well below capacity, electricity output can remain low even when there is enough coal on site. What Does the 59% PLF Tell Us? The Ministry's position is that coal stock at around 114% of the normative requirement and a tentative PLF of around 59% do not fit a simple explanation based on fuel shortage. In other words, coal was available, but generating capacity was not being used at a comparable level. That is why plant performance becomes an important part of the discussion. What About Breakdowns at Independent Power Plants? The release separately refers to breakdowns at IPP plants. It does not provide a detailed engineering diagnosis of each breakdown. Instead, the Ministry states that the State of Punjab may wish to monitor such breakdowns closely to sustain generation. This matter because plant breakdowns cannot be solved merely by supplying more coal. If a generating unit is unavailable, extra fuel at the plant does not automatically translate into more megawatts on the grid. The distinction is simple but important: Coal availability deals with fuel. Plant availability deals with whether the machinery can actually use that fuel. Both must work together. How Much Additional Coal Has CIL Offered? The Ministry has also pointed to additional coal made available by CIL subsidiaries. CCL Offer to NPL and TSPL On 30 March 2026, CCL offered 5.0 lakh tonnes of coal to NPL and TSPL under the RCR mode. Against that quantity: approximately 4.1 lakh tonnes had been booked  approximately 3.2 lakh tonnes had been lifted.  This left a clear gap between the quantity initially offered and the quantity physically lifted. BCCL Offer to NPL BCCL separately offered 3.5 lakh tonnes to NPL. Of this: around 1.7 lakh tonnes had been booked  around 1.1 lakh tonnes had been lifted.  Again, actual movement was substantially below the quantity offered. Additional Q2 Allocations The Ministry also refers to additional coal allocations under the Flexibility Policy: 2.30 lakh tonnes to NPL from BCCL and  3.0 lakh tonnes to TSPL from CCL.  At the time of the press release, lifting against these allocations had not yet started.  These numbers explain why the Ministry keeps returning to one practical issue: coal may be available, but that availability needs to become physical movement. What Are the RCR Mode and Flexibility Policy? The release uses both terms in connection with additional coal supply. RCR Mode RCR refers to a Rail-cum-Road arrangement for coal transportation. Instead of the coal moving entirely through one transport mode to the plant, rail and road movement can be combined depending on the applicable logistics arrangement. In this particular release, the term matters because CCL's 5 lakh tonne offer to NPL and TSPL was made under this mode. The release does not create a new RCR system. It simply refers to an existing supply arrangement. Flexibility Policy The Flexibility Policy is mentioned in relation to additional coal allocated to NPL and TSPL. For the purpose of this update, the most relevant point is the allocation itself. The press release does not reproduce all policy conditions, eligibility rules or detailed procedures. Those should therefore not be assumed from this announcement alone. What Are the Main Issues Behind Punjab's Thermal Power Generation? The data points to several connected issues rather than one single cause. 1. Coal Is Available but Not Always Fully Lifted The quantities offered by CCL and BCCL are higher than the quantities finally lifted. That difference affects how much coal actually reaches the plants. 2. Coal Is Building Up at Pachhwara Production is ahead of dispatch. Around 3.21 lakh tonnes remained unevacuated according to the Ministry's figures. 3. Plant Utilisation Is Relatively Low PSPCL's tentative September PLF of around 59% shows that generating capacity was not being fully used. 4. IPP Breakdowns Are Also Part of the Picture The Ministry refers separately to plant breakdowns at IPPs. A unit affected by a breakdown cannot generate merely because fuel is available. 5. Fuel Logistics and Plant Operations Need to Match Coal production, booking, lifting, transportation, plant receipt and electricity generation are connected stages. Better performance at one stage does not automatically compensate for weakness somewhere else. Is Punjab's Problem a Coal Supply Issue or a Coal Utilisation Issue? Based on the Ministry's September 2026 data, the position appears to be more complicated than a simple coal shortage. On Availability: The Ministry says adequate coal has been made available. Recent rake supplies to NPL and TSPL were also above their stated average consumption. On Lifting:  Coal offered by CIL subsidiaries had not been fully lifted. Additional allocations were also awaiting lifting. On Captive Coal:  Pachhwara was producing coal at a faster rate than it was dispatching it. That left a considerable quantity sitting at the mine. On Plant Performance:  PSPCL plants had coal stock above the normative requirement, but tentative PLF was around 59%. Breakdowns at IPPs were another separate concern. What Does This Tell Us? The strongest reading of the Ministry's statement is not that Punjab has no power-sector problem. Rather, it is that inadequate coal availability alone does not explain the lower generation being reported. The gap between coal availability and electricity output appears to involve logistics as well as plant operations. What Does This Mean for Industries and Businesses in Punjab? The Ministry's press release does not create a new compliance requirement for manufacturers, MSMEs or commercial businesses. Its business relevance comes from the importance of dependable electricity supply. Manufacturing Units Industrial plants depend on electricity for machinery, process lines, cooling systems, pumps, compressors and other production equipment. Where generation remains weak, businesses may face more uncertainty in production planning. The exact impact will differ from one industry to another, so this should not be read as a prediction of outages. MSMEs Smaller businesses may have fewer options to absorb prolonged power disruptions or invest heavily in backup systems. For them, the wider health of the State's generation system can affect daily operations more directly.  Energy-Intensive Industries  Businesses with high electricity requirements have a stronger interest in whether thermal capacity is running reliably. For such industries, the real question is not simply how much coal has been allocated. What matters is whether the entire chain is functioning well enough to deliver stable generation. Infrastructure and Commercial Facilities Warehouses, processing facilities, large commercial establishments and infrastructure operators also depend on predictable electricity. They may therefore need to keep track of broader power-sector developments even though this press release does not impose a legal duty on them. What Should Punjab's Power Producers Focus on Now? The Ministry's own data points towards several practical priorities. 1. Improve Coal Booking and Lifting Coal that has already been offered should be lifted in time where the relevant commercial and operational arrangements allow it. The gap between offered, booked and lifted quantities is too important to ignore. 2. Increase Dispatch from Pachhwara More coal production is useful only when the coal can leave the mine. Improving evacuation would reduce the amount of stock sitting unused at the mine. 3. Use Captive Coal Efficiently PSPCL's captive source can support both its own generating needs and permitted IPP utilisation under the applicable arrangements. The focus should remain on converting available mine production into usable plant-level stock. 4. Monitor Power Plant Breakdowns Breakdowns need a plant-level operational response. A fuel-supply solution alone cannot address a generating unit that is not available for operation. 5. Improve Plant Utilisation Where coal stock is already comfortable, attention naturally shifts to the availability and utilisation of generating units. 6. Connect Fuel Planning with Generation Planning Coal logistics should be planned alongside expected generation rather than treated as a separate process. That means bringing production, rail movement, road movement, plant stock and operating capacity into the same planning picture. What Could Improve Punjab's Thermal Power Generation? There is no single step that guarantees higher generation, but the Ministry's data indicates where attention may be needed. Better Lifting of Coal Already Available This is the clearest immediate issue. If additional coal has already been offered, using the available quantity efficiently may be more useful in the short term than focusing only on fresh allocations. Faster Evacuation from the Captive Mine The Pachhwara stock shows that more coal can potentially be moved from the mine into the generating system. Better Generating-Unit Availability Plant performance needs to improve alongside fuel movement. Coal lying at a plant cannot compensate for a unit that is offline. Closer Monitoring of IPPs Reported breakdowns at private generating stations may require more operational attention from the State and the companies concerned. Better Coordination Coal companies, transport systems and power producers are part of one supply chain. Improving communication between these stages can reduce situations where coal exists but is not available at the right place at the right time. Future Outlook for Punjab's Coal-Based Power Generation The Ministry of Coal has said that it and Coal India Limited remain committed to supplying coal to Punjab under existing fuel-supply arrangements. That covers both PSPCL and the State's IPPs. The next issue, therefore, is less about an announcement of new supply and more about how effectively existing coal is used. Three areas will be worth watching: lifting of coal already offered by CIL subsidiaries  dispatch of captive coal from Pachhwara and  operating performance of PSPCL and IPP generating units.  If movement and plant availability improve together, Punjab can make better use of the coal already available to its thermal system. How Can Corpseed Help Businesses in the Energy and Power Sector? This Ministry of Coal clarification does not itself require businesses to obtain a new approval. However, power projects, industrial facilities, infrastructure developments and energy-sector businesses often operate under separate environmental and regulatory requirements. Corpseed can support such businesses through relevant regulatory compliance services, depending on the type, capacity, location and stage of the project. Regulatory Applicability Assessment Before applying for an approval, a business first needs to know what actually applies. Corpseed can assist in checking the regulatory position of a proposed or operating project based on matters such as: project activity  installed capacity  location  environmental category  pollution potential  existing approvals  expansion plans and  sector-specific requirements.  This helps businesses avoid applying for unrelated approvals while also reducing the risk of missing a requirement that does apply. Energy Sector Regulatory Consulting Energy projects often involve more than one authority. Depending on the project, businesses may need to deal with environmental, pollution-control, industrial or project-specific regulations. Corpseed's energy sector regulatory consulting support can help businesses understand which approvals are relevant and how different requirements connect with one another. Environmental Clearance Support Some power, infrastructure and industrial projects may require prior environmental clearance depending on their category, capacity and location. Corpseed can assist eligible projects with: regulatory applicability review  document preparation  application support  coordination during the process and  review of compliance conditions after approval.  No clearance requirement should be assumed without first checking the project against the applicable framework. Pollution Control Consent Support Industrial and energy facilities may also require permissions from the relevant State Pollution Control Board. Where applicable, Corpseed can assist with: Consent to Establish  Consent to Operate  renewal or amendment support  consent-condition review and  pollution-control documentation.  This service may be particularly relevant to new plants, expansions or facilities changing activity or capacity. Power Project Compliance Services For businesses developing or expanding power-related infrastructure, power project compliance services can help bring different regulatory requirements into one place. Support may include checking project approvals, environmental conditions, pollution-control permissions and related regulatory obligations. Environmental Compliance Gap Assessment An operating facility may already hold several permissions but still need to check whether day-to-day operations match the conditions attached to those approvals. A compliance gap assessment can review: existing licences and approvals  validity periods  consent conditions  monitoring records  reporting requirements  environmental documentation and  areas requiring corrective attention.  Regulatory Due Diligence Businesses investing in, acquiring or expanding an energy or industrial project may need to understand its regulatory position before making a commercial commitment. Corpseed can assist with regulatory due diligence covering available approvals, pending compliance matters and project-specific regulatory requirements. Ongoing Regulatory Compliance Services Obtaining an approval is often only the beginning. Depending on the project, businesses may also need to manage renewals, periodic filings, environmental monitoring, consent conditions and regulatory changes. Corpseed's regulatory compliance services can support businesses in identifying and managing these continuing requirements based on the actual project involved. Key Takeaways The Ministry of Coal's 13 September 2026 clarification says adequate coal has been made available to Punjab's power plants.  NPL's recent coal supply was around 5 rakes per day against stated consumption of roughly 4.3 rakes per day, while TSPL received around 5 rakes per day against consumption of roughly 3.8 rakes per day.  Pachhwara Central Coal Mine had reached 83.67% of its annual production target, while dispatch was at 68.44%, leaving around 3.21 lakh tonnes of coal unevaluated.  PSPCL's plant-level coal stock was reported at around 114% of the normative requirement as on 11 September 2026.  The tentative September PLF of PSPCL's plants was around 59%, which the Ministry uses to argue that inadequate coal stock was not the main reason for lower generation.  CCL and BCCL had offered additional coal to Punjab IPPs, but booked and lifted quantities were lower than the amounts offered.  The larger issue is therefore not simply coal supply. Coal lifting, dispatch, plant availability and generating performance all influence how much electricity is ultimately produced.

Subject

Summary: The Bureau of Indian Standards has notified amendments to two existing Indian Standards that sit in very different industries. The first is IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020, which deals with loading under the code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbours. The second is IS 18385:2023, a specification for hot-dip galvanized and galvannealed steel sheet, plate and strip used for automotive applications. For both standards, Amendment No. 1, September 2026, was established on 3 September 2026. The Gazette further records that the respective standards without Amendment No. 1 will remain in force until 2 March 2027.  For businesses, the first question is not simply whether BIS has issued an amendment. The real issue is whether either standard is currently being used in a product specification, engineering project, tender, supply contract, certification arrangement or internal technical document. There is another limitation that businesses should understand from the beginning: the Gazette announces the amendments, but it does not reproduce the detailed technical wording of Amendment No. 1. Exact changes to loading provisions, steel properties, test methods, or other technical requirements cannot therefore be safely taken from this notification alone. BIS Notification at a Glance Particular Verified Details Issuing Authority Bureau of Indian Standards Department Department of Consumer Affairs Document Type BIS Notification Reference Number HQ-PUB015/1/2020-PUB-BIS (1599) Notification Date 8 September 2026 Gazette Publication Date 9 September 2026 Legal Basis Rule 15(1) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018 Standard 1 IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 Standard 2 IS 18385:2023 Amendment Amendment No. 1, September 2026 Amendment Establishment Date 3 September 2026 Unamended Standards Remain in Force Until 2 March 2027 Main Sectors Ports/harbours and automotive steel New Certification Procedure Not specified in this notification New QCO Not specified in this notification The BIS notification is dated 8 September 2026 and has been issued under Rule 15(1) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018. It formally notifies that amendments to the standards listed in the Schedule have been established.  The Gazette itself records 9 September 2026 as the publication date. That date should not be confused with 3 September 2026, which is the establishment date recorded for both amendments.  What Exactly Has BIS Amended? BIS has not replaced these two standards with completely new standards. Instead, it has established Amendment No. 1 to each of them. That distinction matters. An amendment changes or adds to an existing standard. To understand what has technically changed, the amendment document has to be read along with the original standard. Indian Standard Subject Amendment Established On Unamended Standard Remains in Force Until IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 Planning and design of ports and harbours loading Amendment No. 1, September 2026 3 September 2026 2 March 2027 IS 18385:2023 Galvanized/galvannealed steel for automotive applications Amendment No. 1, September 2026 3 September 2026 2 March 2027 These are the main changes that can be confirmed directly from the Gazette.  The notification does not contain the amended technical clauses themselves. For that reason, businesses should avoid preparing an old-versus-new technical comparison until the relevant Amendment No. 1 document has been checked. Which Indian Standards Have Been Amended by BIS? IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020- Planning and Design of Ports and Harbours The full title of the first standard is: IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020- Planning and Design of Ports and Harbours Code of Practice, Part 3 Loading (Second Revision). The title makes its subject clear Part 3 deals with loading in the context of planning and design work for ports and harbours. For this standard, BIS has recorded: Amendment No. 1  amendment month/year as September 2026  establishment date as 3 September 2026 and  continuation of the standard without the amendment up to 2 March 2027.  What cannot be taken from this Gazette are the actual revised loading provisions. The document does not list revised load values, combinations, coefficients, design assumptions or structural parameters. Any engineering team that relies on IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 will therefore need the actual amendment before deciding whether its drawings, calculations or project specifications need revision. IS 18385:2023 – Automotive Steel Specification The second standard is: IS 18385:2023- Hot-Dip Galvanized/Galvannealed Steel Sheet, Plate and Strip for Automotive Applications- Specification. The Gazette records Amendment No. 1 for this standard on the same timeline: establishment on 3 September 2026, with the standard without the amendment remaining in force until 2 March 2027.  This standard concerns steel products used for automotive applications, but the Gazette does not tell us what technical requirement has changed. It does not provide revised information on matters such as: steel grades  coating mass  dimensions  mechanical properties  chemical composition  surface requirements  tolerances  testing methods or  acceptance criteria.  Those details need to come from the actual amendment, not from assumptions. The Regulatory Framework Behind the BIS Notification The notification has been issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards under the Department of Consumer Affairs. Its opening text expressly refers to sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018. BIS then states that amendments to the Indian Standards listed in the attached Schedule have been established.  What BIS Is Doing Through This Notification For this document, BIS is formally notifying the establishment of amendments to existing Indian Standards. The Schedule gives businesses four particularly useful pieces of information: Which standard has been amended.  Which amendment has been established.  The date on which the amendment was established.  How long the standard without that amendment remains in force.  The Gazette does not convert this into a fresh application or licensing process. Why Rule 15(1) Matters Here Rule 15(1) is the provision BIS itself cites while issuing the notification. For a business reader, there is no need to stretch that reference into a wider legal conclusion. What matters here is that the amendments have been formally notified within the BIS standards framework. Key Dates Businesses Need to Understand There are several dates in the document. Each one refers to a different event. Event Date Business Meaning Establishment of Amendment No. 1 3 September 2026 Both amendments are recorded as established from this date. BIS Notification Date 8 September 2026 Date appearing on the BIS notification Gazette Publication Date 9 September 2026 Date appearing in the Gazette issue Unamended Standards Remain in Force Until 2 March 2027 Versions without Amendment No. 1 continue in force up to this date. Businesses should avoid calling all of these dates an “effective date”. The Gazette itself uses separate columns for the date of establishment of the amendment and the date until which the standard without the amendment remains in force.  That difference is important when a business is deciding which edition or amendment level should appear in technical documents. What Does the Period Until 2 March 2027 Mean? The Gazette records 2 March 2027 as the date up to which the respective standards without Amendment No. 1 will remain in force.  For business planning, this effectively creates a period in which both the newly amended position and the unamended standard need to be understood carefully. This time can be used to check: whether the standard is actually applicable  whether an existing contract names a specific edition  whether a customer's specification uses the old version  whether internal controlled documents need updating  whether certification, if separately applicable, is affected and  what the actual Amendment No. 1 changes technically.  What should not be assumed is that every certificate, licence or product automatically becomes invalid after 2 March 2027. The Gazette does not say that. Can Businesses Continue Using the Existing Standards Until 2 March 2027? The wording of the Schedule is clear that the standards without the amendment remain in force until 2 March 2027. That gives a clear position at the standards level. The position for a particular company can still depend on how the standard enters that company's work. For example, an organisation may be dealing with a: tender condition  client specification  supply contract  BIS certification requirement  Quality Control Order  engineering specification  approved vendor requirement or  internal technical standard.  A contract that calls for the “latest version including amendments” may have a different effect from one that expressly mentions a particular edition. So, while the Gazette gives an important transition date, a business should also check the document that makes the standard relevant in the first place. BIS Amendment to IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 – What Port and Harbour Businesses Should Review Relevance to Port and Harbour Projects IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 deals with loading within the planning and design framework for ports and harbours. A project team may therefore need to pay attention to where this standard appears in the technical basis of a project. The first review should be simple: find out where the standard is currently referenced. It may appear in: design basis reports  engineering specifications  tender schedules  drawings  consultant requirements  EPC contracts  project technical manuals or  internal engineering standards.  The Gazette itself does not say that every project using the standard must immediately be redesigned. Design and Engineering Documents Once the actual amendment is obtained, the design team can check whether its subject affects current work. If it does, the review may extend to drawings, calculations, engineering assumptions or project specifications. That technical decision should come after reading Amendment No. 1. It should not be made from the Gazette summary alone. Consultants and EPC Contractors Consultants and EPC contractors may be working from documents prepared at different times. One consultant may be using a controlled copy of IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020, while another technical document may refer more generally to the latest edition. This is where document control matters. Before revising a design, contractors and consultants should establish: Which version is currently contractually applicable.  Whether Amendment No. 1 changes a requirement relevant to their scope.  Whether client or project-authority approval is needed before changing technical documents.  Project Authorities Port and harbour authorities may also need to review the technical references used in active tenders and future procurement. If a tender specifically names the old version, simply replacing it in an issued document may not always be appropriate. The contractual position should be reviewed first. BIS Amendment to IS 18385: 2023 What Automotive Steel Businesses Should Review Products Covered by the Standard Title IS 18385:2023 covers: hot-dip galvanized steel sheet  galvannealed steel sheet  plate  strip and  automotive applications.  The Gazette does not break this down into detailed grades or product categories.  For manufacturers and suppliers, the key task is therefore to determine whether their product specification actually uses IS 18385:2023. Steel Manufacturers Steel manufacturers using this standard may need to check: current product specifications  customer-approved specifications  quality plans  internal standards lists  technical data sheets  testing references and  contractual product requirements.  The actual technical amendment should be reviewed before any production or quality parameter is changed. Automotive Suppliers Suppliers of steel or steel-based components may have customer documents that refer to IS 18385:2023. The amendment could therefore matter even where the supplier is not dealing directly with BIS. A customer may, for instance, use an Indian Standard as part of its own material specification. That is a contractual or technical relationship and should be reviewed separately from mandatory BIS certification . Automotive OEMs and Procurement Teams Automotive OEMs often work through detailed vendor and material specifications. Where IS 18385:2023 appears in one of those documents, procurement and quality teams should verify: the edition currently referenced  whether amendments are automatically incorporated  whether supplier approval documents need revision and  whether the customer or internal quality team has issued updated instructions.  Again, the Gazette itself does not impose these steps on every OEM. They are practical review areas where the standard is actually being used. Sector-Wise Impact of the BIS Standards Amendment 2026 Stakeholder Standard Likely to Matter Possible Business Effect What to Review First Port Developers IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 Existing project specifications may cite the standard Design basis and project documents Harbour Authorities IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 Tender or technical references may need checking Design basis and project documents Engineering Consultants IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 Design documents may use a particular edition Controlled engineering standards EPC Contractors IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 Contract and design requirements may differ Contract and technical scope Steel Manufacturers IS 18385:2023 Product specification may need technical comparison Manufacturing and quality specification Automotive Steel Suppliers IS 18385:2023 Customer requirements may reference the standard Customer purchase specifications Automotive OEMs IS 18385:2023 Material procurement documents may be affected Approved material/vendor requirements Quality Teams Either standard Document versions may need control Standards register and quality records Procurement Teams Either standard Purchase documents may cite an older version Standards register and quality records This table shows possible business impact. It should not be read as a list of statutory obligations created by the Gazette. Does This Notification Make BIS Certification Mandatory? This notification itself expressly creates no new mandatory BIS certification requirement. That distinction deserves attention because the words “BIS notification” and “Indian Standard” are often treated as if they automatically mean that a BIS licence has become compulsory. That is not what this Gazette says. The document establishes amendments to two Indian Standards. It does not separately introduce: a compulsory BIS certification clause  an ISI Mark requirement  a BIS licence application  a new registration portal  a certification deadline  a product-specific application process or  a new Quality Control Order.  An Indian Standard can become compulsory through another legal instrument. Where that happens, the separate instrument has to be checked. For that reason, businesses looking for BIS compliance consulting should first ask whether the amended standard is actually mandatory for their particular product or activity rather than assuming that certification follows automatically. Amendment of an Indian Standard vs Mandatory BIS Certification Point Amendment to an Indian Standard Mandatory BIS Certification Main Purpose Changes or updates an existing technical standard Requires conformity/certification under an applicable legal framework Does this Gazette establish it? Changes or updates an existing technical standard No new compulsory certification route is expressly introduced Is an amendment automatically a QCO? No A QCO is a separate regulatory instrument Does an amendment automatically require a fresh licence? Not established by this Gazette Depends on the applicable certification framework Main Business Question What technical requirement has changed? Is certification legally required for this product/activity? What should be checked? Amendment text and current technical references Applicable QCO, law, scheme or BIS certification requirement For manufacturers, this distinction can prevent unnecessary filings or incorrect assumptions about certification. Does the Notification Introduce a New Registration, Licence or Approval Requirement? The Gazette does not provide a new registration, licensing or approval procedure. There is no new information in this notification on: application forms  application portal  registration documents  fees  inspection procedure  factory audit  testing application  approval period  licence validity  renewal or  certificate format.  A business should therefore not build a new filing process around this notification alone. If the product is already subject to a separate BIS certification framework, that framework should be checked independently. What Has Changed and What Cannot Be Confirmed from the Gazette Alone? What the Gazette Clearly Confirms The notification confirms four points that businesses can rely on: Amendment No. 1 has been established for two existing Indian Standards.  Both amendments are identified as September 2026 amendments.  Both have an establishment date of 3 September 2026.  The standards without those amendments remain in force until 2 March 2027.  What Is Missing from the Gazette The Gazette does not reproduce the technical amendment text. It therefore does not tell a business exactly: which clause has been changed  which sentence has been substituted  whether a technical table has changed  whether any loading value has been revised  whether a steel grade has changed  whether dimensions have been revised  whether testing requirements have changed  whether any performance requirement has been added or  whether any earlier technical provision has been deleted.  This is one of the most important limits of the document. Can an Old vs New Technical Comparison Be Made from This Notification? A complete technical comparison cannot be prepared from this Gazette alone. What can be compared is the administrative position. Area Position Confirmed by the Gazette Existing Standard 1 IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 Existing Standard 2 IS 18385:2023 Amendment Amendment No. 1, September 2026 Establishment Date 3 September 2026 Position of Unamended Standards Remain in force until 2 March 2027 Exact Clause Changes Not reproduced Revised Technical Values Not reproduced Revised Test Requirements Not reproduced A technical old-versus-new table should be prepared only after the actual amendment text has been obtained. Do Businesses Need the Full Amendment Text for Technical Compliance? For any business that actually relies on either standard, the answer will usually be yes for a detailed technical assessment. The Gazette tells businesses that an amendment exists. It does not tell them enough to revise a design, product specification or quality parameter. The amendment may need to be reviewed where the standard is tied to: product design  engineering design  manufacturing specification  quality control  testing  procurement  customer requirements  contract conditions  tenders or  certification requirements.  Obtaining the amendment text should therefore come before making technical changes. Scope and Applicability Not every company working in ports, automotive manufacturing, or steel production will necessarily face the same impact. Entity Possible Relevance Why It May Matter What Should Be Checked Port Developer IS 4651 may be used in project design Project specification Design basis and tender Harbour Project Authority Standard may form part of technical requirements Procurement/project control Tender and engineering documents EPC Contractor Standard may appear in scope of work Contract requirement Contract version and drawings Steel Manufacturer IS 18385 may form part of product specification Product/customer requirement Current technical specification Automotive Supplier Customer may reference IS 18385 Contractual requirement Purchase specification Automotive OEM Standard may be used for material procurement Internal/vendor requirement Material approval document BIS Licence Holder Amendment may matter if the certified product is linked to the standard Separate certification framework Applicable scheme/QCO Actual applicability can arise through different routes. These can include law, certification, a QCO, tender requirements, customer specifications or private contracts. The Gazette by itself does not answer every one of those questions. Impact on Tenders, Purchase Orders and Technical Specifications For many businesses, the immediate issue may be document wording rather than a new government filing. Consider a tender that states only: “Material shall conform to IS 18385:2023.” Now compare that with a document that says: “Material shall conform to IS 18385:2023, including the latest amendments.” Those two references may require a different contractual review. The same issue can arise in: purchase orders  EPC contracts  approved vendor specifications  engineering documents  quality plans  inspection plans  material specifications and  customer technical requirements.  Businesses should therefore locate where the standard appears before deciding what needs to change. What Should Businesses Review During the Period Up to 2 March 2027? 1. Find Every Active Reference to the Standard Start with current documents, not assumptions. Look for the relevant standard number in engineering, procurement, quality and contract records. 2. Identify Why the Standard Is Being Followed A business should know whether the standard applies because of: a law  a QCO  certification  a tender  a customer  a contract or  an internal technical decision.  The answer affects what needs to happen next. 3. Obtain Amendment No. 1 This is necessary before carrying out a genuine technical comparison. 4. Compare the Amendment with Current Practice Technical specialists should check whether the amendment affects an existing design, product requirement, quality parameter or testing reference. 5. Check Customer and Supplier Documents Where supply chains are involved, both sides should be working from the same version. 5. Review Contracts Before Changing Controlled Specifications A business should not automatically alter a contractual specification just because an amendment has been issued. First check whether the contract allows or requires that change. Standards and Document-Control Actions for Businesses A standards amendment can easily become a document-control issue. One department may update its copy while another continues to work from an older technical specification. Businesses using either standard may therefore want to review: controlled standard registers  engineering manuals  SOPs  technical data sheets  quality plans  test instructions  drawings  supplier specifications  purchase specifications  tender documents and  contract references.  Any update should be made after confirming what Amendment No. 1 actually changes. The Gazette does not prescribe an internal document-control procedure, so this is a practical business recommendation rather than a legal requirement created by the notification. What the BIS Notification Does Not Specify The Gazette does not expressly specify: full Amendment No. 1 text  revised technical clauses  new BIS licence procedure  new certification application form  application documents  certification fee  testing fee  factory-inspection procedure  certification timeline  new penalty  licence-renewal requirement  compulsory registration date  a new QCO  product recall requirements or  enforcement action after 2 March 2027.  These points should not be filled in with generic BIS information unless an independent official source actually applies to the particular product or activity. Compliance Requirements for Businesses What Is Confirmed The standards have been amended, and the Gazette provides a date up to which the standards without those amendments remain in force. What Businesses Need to Determine Separately The next questions depend on the individual business: Does the standard apply to this product or project?  Is its use mandatory or contractual?  Is there a separate QCO?  Is the business operating under a BIS certification scheme linked to the standard?  Does the contract require the latest amendment?  Does Amendment No. 1 actually change something relevant to the business?  These questions form the basis of a proper compliance review. Practical Readiness Checklist Before 2 March 2027 Priority Action Main Purpose High Check whether IS 4651 or IS 18385 is currently used Establish relevance High Identify why the standard applies Separate legal, contractual and internal requirements High Obtain Amendment No. 1 Understand actual technical changes High Compare amended text with current specification Identify genuine gaps Medium Review contracts and tenders Check applicable version Medium Review customer and supplier specifications Avoid version mismatch Medium Check controlled standards register Maintain document consistency Medium Involve technical, quality and procurement teams Coordinate implementation Medium Review testing/documentation changes Act only where amendment requires it Before End of Applicable Coexistence Period Complete relevant transition work Avoid last-minute technical issues This checklist is meant for practical planning. The Gazette itself does not prescribe these steps as a statutory process. What Happens After 2 March 2027? The Gazette says that the standards without Amendment No. 1 remain in force until 2 March 2027.  That makes the date important for anyone relying on the unamended version. However, the notification does not spell out a list of enforcement consequences from 3 March 2027. It does not say that businesses automatically face: licence cancellation  product seizure  recall  rejection of all existing stock  prosecution  customs restrictions or  tender cancellation.  Those consequences should not be added without a separate legal source. For a business using one of these standards, the safer approach is to resolve the applicable technical version before the coexistence period ends rather than waiting for uncertainty after the date. Benefits of Reviewing the Amendment Early Early review gives technical teams more room to work properly. A business may benefit from: finding outdated technical references before they confuse  identifying contract issues while there is still time to resolve them  giving suppliers enough time to review changed specifications  reducing the risk of different departments using different versions  planning technical document updates in an orderly way  checking whether testing or procurement changes are genuinely needed.  Early review does not guarantee certification or regulatory acceptance. It simply gives the business more time to understand the change properly. Challenges Businesses May Face During the Transition Obtaining the Actual Amendment The Gazette does not contain the amendment wording, so technical work cannot stop at the Gazette notification. Understanding Whether the Change Matters Not every amended clause will necessarily affect every business. A port contractor, steel mill, and automotive OEM will look at the amendment from very different angles. Managing Several Technical Documents A standard may be referenced in dozens of internal and external documents. Finding all of them can take time, particularly on long-running projects. Coordinating Suppliers and Customers A supplier may be ready to move to an amended specification before its customer updates the corresponding purchase requirement. That mismatch should be resolved rather than assumed away. Reading Existing Contracts Some contracts fix the technical standard as it existed on the contract date. Others may incorporate subsequent amendments. The exact wording matters. Risks Businesses Should Avoid A few mistakes can make the update appear more complicated than it really is. Do not treat 3 September, 8 September and 9 September 2026 as the same date.  Do not call 2 March 2027 a universal BIS licence renewal deadline.  Do not assume Amendment No. 1 automatically makes BIS certification compulsory.  Do not write technical changes that are absent from the Gazette.  Do not assume every port or automotive business has the same obligation.  Do not change a contractual technical specification without checking the contract.  Do not confuse an amendment notification with a Quality Control Order.  Do not invent fees, documents, testing requirements or penalties.  Business and Regulatory Perspective This notification looks short, but the business effect can vary considerably. For a port project, the issue may sit mainly with engineering and tender documents. For an automotive steel manufacturer, it may sit with product specifications, customer approvals and quality records. For a procurement team, the problem may simply be identifying which amendment level suppliers are expected to follow. For a compliance team, the first job may be to determine whether the standard is mandatory at all. That is why a proper review should start with applicability rather than certification paperwork. Business Opportunities Created by the Update The amendment may increase demand for specialised technical and regulatory work where companies use either of these standards. Relevant service areas may include: standard applicability review  technical amendment analysis  document gap assessment  specification review  supplier compliance review  product regulatory consulting  technical compliance consulting and  transition support.  This should not be treated as evidence of guaranteed market growth. The commercial opportunity exists only where businesses genuinely need technical or regulatory assistance. What Businesses Should Do Next Priority 1: Establish Whether the Standard Applies Do not start with a certification application. First determine whether the standard is relevant to the business, product, contract or project. Priority 2: Find Existing References Search technical, contractual, quality and procurement documents for IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 or IS 18385:2023. Priority 3: Obtain Amendment No. 1 The actual amendment is needed for any serious technical assessment. Priority 4: Carry Out a Gap Review Compare the amendment with the requirements currently being followed. Priority 5: Check the 2 March 2027 Position Understand how the coexistence date affects the specific technical or contractual arrangement. Priority 6: Update Controlled Documents Where Needed Do this only after the change has been verified. Priority 7: Check Separate BIS or QCO Requirements Where a product is subject to compulsory certification, the relevant legal instrument should be reviewed separately. How Can Corpseed Help with BIS Compliance and Product Compliance? A short Gazette notification can still create difficult questions for a business. The standard may be amended, but the business still needs to know whether the standard applies, whether certification is separately mandatory, and what documents need to be reviewed. Corpseed can support businesses through BIS compliance consulting, product-specific regulatory reviews and related technical compliance services. BIS Regulatory Applicability Assessment Before a business starts changing documents or applying for certification, Corpseed can help review the basic applicability position. The assessment may look at: the product or project involved  applicable Indian Standard  existing regulatory requirement  QCO position, where relevant  certification framework  contractual references and  business activity.  This helps separate a genuine regulatory requirement from a standards update that may only need technical or contractual review. Product Compliance Services Manufacturers and suppliers may need help understanding which technical and product regulations apply to their goods. Through product compliance services, Corpseed can assist in reviewing the regulatory position, relevant standard references and supporting compliance requirements. The scope should always depend on the actual product rather than using the same BIS process for every manufacturer. Technical Compliance Gap Assessment Once the applicable amendment text is available, Corpseed can support a structured comparison between the updated requirement and existing business documentation. The review may cover areas such as: technical specifications  internal standards references  quality documentation  product records  vendor requirements and  compliance files.  This helps businesses identify what genuinely needs attention instead of changing documents unnecessarily. BIS Certification Consulting Where a product is separately covered by a mandatory or voluntary BIS certification route, Corpseed can provide BIS certification consulting based on the applicable scheme. This support may include understanding the certification requirement, reviewing documentation and coordinating the relevant application process. The present Gazette should not itself be treated as proof that certification is compulsory for either standard. Technical Documentation Review Technical documents often continue to carry old standard references long after a standard has been revised. Corpseed can assist businesses in reviewing relevant documents such as: product specifications  quality records  technical files  supplier documents and  applicable Indian Standard references.  The review can help identify inconsistent or outdated references that need further technical attention. Testing and Laboratory Coordination If a separately applicable certification or technical requirement calls for product testing, Corpseed can support the testing and laboratory coordination process. Testing should be linked to a verified requirement. It should not be added merely because this Gazette mentions an amendment. Manufacturer Compliance Services Manufacturers dealing with regulated products often need to coordinate technical, regulatory and documentation requirements at the same time. Corpseed's manufacturer compliance services can support businesses in understanding applicable standards, certification conditions and product-related regulatory requirements. Ongoing BIS and Regulatory Support Standards are only one part of product compliance. A business may also need to track: QCO notifications  later BIS amendments  product-specific certification rules  implementation dates  regulatory extensions and  changes to mandatory standards.  Ongoing regulatory monitoring can help businesses identify these developments before they affect manufacturing or procurement decisions. Businesses that are unsure whether IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 or IS 18385:2023 affects their operations can use BIS compliance consulting first to establish applicability and then decide what technical or certification action is actually needed. Key Takeaways BIS has notified Amendment No. 1, September 2026, to two existing Indian Standards.  IS 4651 (Part 3): 2020 covers loading under the code of practice for planning and design of ports and harbours.  IS 18385:2023 covers hot-dip galvanized/galvannealed steel sheet, plate and strip for automotive applications.  Both amendments were established on 3 September 2026.  The standards without Amendment No. 1 remain in force until 2 March 2027.  The Gazette does not reproduce the detailed technical contents of either amendment.  This notification does not itself set out a new BIS licence, registration procedure or Quality Control Order.  Businesses should first check where these standards are actually used and obtain Amendment No. 1 before making technical changes.

Subject

Summary: The State Pollution Control Board, Odisha , through a public notice dated 7 September 2026, has asked certain businesses covered under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, to complete their registration on the Common Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Portal. The notice is relevant to a range of entities working in the plastic sector, including producers, importers, brand owners, manufacturers, sellers and Plastic Waste Processors. The notice is particularly important for businesses that have not yet completed the registration applicable to them. It also affects companies whose suppliers or buyers remain unregistered because the Board has linked registration with continued reporting of purchase and sale transactions on the portal. There is one distinction that needs to be made from the start. Odisha has not implemented Plastic EPR using this notice issued in September 2026. The EPR system was there all along. The current document is centered around the aspect of registration on the Common EPR Portal of CPCB, migrating from the old portal, and transaction reporting.  Odisha SPCB EPR Notice at a Glance Particular Details Issuing authority State Pollution Control Board, Odisha Document Public Notice Notice No. 13525 / IND-IV-PCP-PWM-37 (Part-IV) / 2025-26 Date 7 September 2026 Subject Mandatory Registration on Common EPR Portal for Entities under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 Main regulatory framework Mandatory Registration on Common EPR Portal for Entities under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 Provisions referred to Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the EPR Guidelines Portal Common EPR Portal developed by CPCB Earlier portal Plastic-packaging EPR portal discontinued from 28 June 2026 Main requirement Registration of applicable entities on the Common EPR Portal Registration timing Immediate registration called for Transaction issue Recording/declaration of certain transactions with unregistered entities is to be discontinued Separate future deadline Not expressly specified in the notice Non-compliance Action may follow under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 Specific penalty amount Not expressly specified in the notice The notification is brief; however, it has business implications that go beyond merely requesting firms to establish an account with the portal. It links registration with the capacity for proper reporting of transactions in the plastic value chain.  What Is the Common EPR Portal for Plastic Packaging? The Common EPR Portal is the digital system developed by the Central Pollution Control Board for handling different parts of Extended Producer Responsibility compliance. For plastic packaging, the Odisha notice specifically refers to functions connected with: registration;  transaction reporting;  compliance with EPR targets; and  annual return filing.  In practical terms, the portal becomes the place where a covered entity's regulatory status and its EPR-related activity are brought together. Registration is therefore only one part of the system. Once an entity falls within the applicable regulatory category, other responsibilities may arise depending on whether it is a Producer, Importer, Brand Owner, manufacturer, seller, or Plastic Waste Processor . Registration Covered entities need to hold the registration applicable to their activity. The first task is to identify the correct category because two businesses dealing with plastic may not necessarily have the same EPR obligations. Transaction Reporting The portal is also used to report relevant transactions. This is where the September 2026 notice becomes particularly important. If a business is required to be registered but remains outside the portal, other entities dealing with that business may face a reporting problem. EPR Target Compliance Some regulated parties have EPR obligations associated with the collection, recycling, or other appropriate disposal of plastic packaging. The specific obligation will vary based on the regulation class and relevant provisions. The Odisha notice itself does not introduce a new EPR target percentage. Annual Returns Annual return filing also forms part of the portal-based compliance system. Companies therefore need to see registration as the starting point of compliance, rather than the entire compliance exercise. What Happened to the Earlier Plastic Packaging EPR Portal? Before the Common EPR Portal became the relevant system, plastic-packaging EPR activities were being handled through the earlier portal. According to the Odisha SPCB notice, operations of that portal were discontinued with effect from 28 June 2026, and existing user data was migrated to the Common EPR Portal.  That creates two different situations for businesses. Existing Registered Entities An entity that was already registered earlier should not automatically assume that no action is required simply because its data was migrated. As a practical internal check, it makes sense to verify: whether the Common EPR Portal account can be accessed;  whether basic business details are correct;  whether the registration category appears properly;  whether transaction records are available where relevant; and  whether the responsible compliance team has working portal access.  These checks are sensible migration controls. They are not all separately listed as statutory duties in the Odisha notice. Unregistered Entities For entities that should already be registered but are not, the Board's message is much more direct. The notice asks stakeholders to ensure immediate registration. Event Date What It Means Earlier plastic-packaging EPR portal discontinued 28 June 2026 Earlier portal operations stopped User data migrated Following portal transition Existing users were moved to the Common EPR Portal Odisha SPCB public notice 7 September 2026 Covered stakeholders were told to address registration and transaction-reporting compliance Separate later deadline Not specified Notice asks for immediate registration instead The 28 June date relates to the change in portal infrastructure. It should not be confused with the beginning of Plastic EPR regulation. Regulatory Framework Behind the Notice The simplest way to understand the update is to separate the law, the regulator, and the online portal. Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 The Plastic Waste Management Rules provide the underlying legal framework. They govern plastic-waste management and have been amended over time to deal with changing responsibilities across the plastic supply chain. EPR Guidelines Extended Producer Responsibility places responsibility on specified entities for managing plastic packaging after it enters the market. The Odisha notice specifically relies on Clauses 6.1 and 6.2 of the EPR Guidelines while listing entities required to register on the Common EPR Portal.  Central Pollution Control Board CPCB has developed the Common EPR Portal. Its role is therefore different from that of an individual business using the system. CPCB operates at the central regulatory level, while covered companies use the portal to fulfil applicable requirements. State Pollution Control Board, Odisha Odisha SPCB has issued the present communication to stakeholders operating within its jurisdiction. The notice also directs that copies be circulated through government departments, urban local bodies, District Collectors and the Board's regional network for wider awareness. Page 2 is largely concerned with this circulation rather than adding another set of substantive registration conditions.  Does the Odisha Notice Introduce a New Plastic EPR Requirement? No. It mainly reinforces and operationalises requirements under the existing Plastic Waste Management and EPR framework. The difference matters. A reader could otherwise look at the words "mandatory registration" and assume that registration became mandatory only on 7 September 2026. That is not the correct way to read the notice. The document instead addresses three immediate matters: use of the Common EPR Portal after migration from the previous portal;  registration of entities already falling within the relevant regulatory categories; and  transaction reporting involving entities that remain unregistered.  The business question is therefore not simply, "Has a new law been introduced?" The more useful question is: "Does my business fall within one of the categories that should already be registered, and is our present portal and transaction-reporting position compliant?" Who Needs to Register on the Common EPR Portal? The notice lists several categories. Companies need to identify themselves correctly because the regulatory position depends on the actual business activity. Producers The notice expressly includes Producers, including micro and small enterprises as defined under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.  This point deserves attention from smaller units. A business should not assume that being a micro or small enterprise automatically means no registration is needed. The registration question and the extent of EPR obligations are separate issues. Importers Importers of: plastic packaging; and  plastic raw material  are also covered by the notice. An importer should therefore check exactly what is being brought into India and how that activity is classified under the Plastic Waste Management framework. Brand Owners Brand Owners are another expressly mentioned category. For a company selling products under its own brand, plastic packaging can bring the business within the EPR framework even where the company does not manufacture the packaging itself. Manufacturers of Plastic Raw Material Manufacturers supplying plastic raw material are also covered. This is important because Plastic EPR compliance is no longer something that should be viewed only from the perspective of consumer-facing brands. Manufacturers of Compostable or Biodegradable Plastic Items The notice specifically includes manufacturers of items made from: compostable plastics; and  biodegradable plastics.  These terms should be kept separate. Their regulatory treatment and technical requirements are not necessarily identical. Sellers Sellers are also referred to in the notice. The exact registration position should be assessed according to the activity being carried out and the applicable provisions rather than treating every person selling any plastic-containing product as automatically falling into the same category. Plastic Waste Processors Plastic Waste Processors, commonly referred to as PWPs, include entities engaged in: recycling;  waste-to-energy;  waste-to-oil; and  industrial composting.  Their role differs from that of a Producer or Brand Owner because PWPs handle plastic waste after generation and form part of the processing side of the EPR system. Entity-Wise Applicability Matrix Entity Industrial composting operator Main Area to Review Producer Yes Main Area to Review Micro/small Producer Yes Registration applicability despite enterprise size Importer Yes Plastic packaging/raw-material activity Brand Owner Yes EPR registration and transaction position Plastic raw-material manufacturer Yes Correct portal registration Compostable plastic manufacturer Yes Appropriate regulatory category Biodegradable plastic manufacturer Yes Appropriate regulatory category Seller Yes Whether the selling activity falls within the covered category Recycler Yes PWP registration and reporting Waste-to-energy operator Yes PWP registration Waste-to-oil operator Yes PWP registration Industrial composting operator Yes PWP registration What Is the Position of Micro and Small Enterprises? This is one area where careless wording can easily create confusion. The Odisha notice expressly refers to Producers, including micro and small enterprises, while listing entities required to register.  Therefore, a micro or small enterprise should not begin with the assumption that MSME status automatically removes the registration requirement. The notice also refers separately to micro and small Brand Owners in the part dealing with recording transactions with unregistered entities. That reference is limited. It should not be turned into a statement that every micro or small Brand Owner enjoys a complete exemption from the Plastic Waste Management framework. For an MSME, the compliance assessment should therefore answer four separate questions: What role does the enterprise perform?  Is Common EPR Portal registration required for that role?  Which EPR duties actually apply?  Are there any specific exceptions relevant to that entity or transaction?  Keeping those questions separate reduces the risk of either over-compliance or missed obligations. Is Registration Required Before Carrying on Business? The notice takes a firm position for entities falling under Clause 6.1. It states that covered entities shall not carry out business without registration obtained through the Common EPR Portal.  For a company that clearly falls within the covered category, registration is therefore not something that should be left until the annual return stage. The practical sequence is straightforward: identify the entity's correct regulatory category;  check whether registration already exists;  verify whether it is available on the Common EPR Portal; and  address any registration gap before continuing to rely on an incomplete compliance position.  This is a practical roadmap, not a separate statutory procedure prescribed word for word by the notice. What Happens to Transactions With Unregistered Entities? This is probably the most important operational part of the September notice. Odisha SPCB states that declaration or recording of purchase and sale transactions with unregistered entities will be discontinued on the Common EPR Portal, except in respect of the stated Brand Owner (micro and small) and PWP-related transactions, as applicable.  The wording needs to be handled carefully. It does not automatically mean that every commercial agreement with an unregistered party becomes void. The notice is specifically addressing regulatory registration and portal transaction reporting. Purchase Transactions Consider the procurement side first. If a supplier is required to hold EPR registration but remains unregistered, the purchasing company may not be able to treat that transaction in the normal manner for portal reporting. That creates a practical reason to check suppliers before the issue reaches the reporting stage. Sale Transactions The same concern works in the opposite direction. A seller dealing with a buyer that should be registered may face difficulty when the relevant transaction needs to be reflected on the portal. Why Counterparty Status Now Matters More EPR registration can therefore affect more than the entity named on the certificate. Situation Possible Problem Practical Response Registered buyer dealing with unregistered supplier Purchase reporting may be affected Check whether supplier registration is required Registered seller dealing with unregistered buyer Sale reporting may face difficulty Ask buyer to review registration Existing supplier has unclear status Reporting risk may remain unnoticed Carry out a registration-status review PWP transaction involved Special transaction treatment may apply Review the applicable PWP provisions before reporting A company may have its own registration in place but still face reporting problems because another business in its supply chain has not regularised its position. What Should Businesses Do About Unregistered Suppliers and Buyers? The notice directly asks stakeholders to require their unregistered suppliers and buyers to obtain registration immediately so that continued transaction reporting can be enabled.  For a company with many suppliers or customers, this cannot always be managed only by the legal department. Procurement, sales, accounts and compliance teams may all need to work together. A sensible internal review may cover: suppliers handling plastic packaging or raw material;  buyers falling within a covered EPR category;  EPR registration details already available in vendor records;  transactions waiting to be reported;  suppliers or customers whose registration position is unclear; and  communication sent to counterparties asking them to regularise their registration.  The notice does not prescribe a new formal KYC process. These are practical controls that can help the company manage the reporting issue highlighted by Odisha SPCB. How Does This Affect Different Business Teams? Procurement Procurement teams may need to add EPR status to their vendor-compliance checks where the supplier falls within a covered category. A low price or established commercial relationship does not solve a registration problem if the transaction later cannot be properly reflected in the regulatory system. Sales Sales teams may also need basic visibility over whether certain customers are registered. This becomes more relevant where the customer's status affects transaction reporting. Accounts and Finance Finance teams generally hold the underlying purchase and sales records. If the commercial data in the company's books and the information available for EPR reporting do not match, the compliance team may struggle when filing or reconciling portal data. Environmental and Compliance Teams These teams have to connect the regulatory requirement with actual business records. That includes registration status, entity classification, portal access, and transaction reporting. Waste-Management Teams Where a company works with recyclers or other PWPs, it should confirm that the processor being relied upon is appropriately registered for the relevant activity. What Does the Notice Mean for Plastic Waste Processors? Plastic Waste Processors do not all perform the same activity. Recyclers Recyclers process plastic waste into material that can be used again, subject to the applicable regulatory framework. For EPR purposes, their registration status can be important for businesses relying on recycling to meet applicable obligations. Waste-to-Energy Operators These entities use plastic waste in approved energy-recovery operations. Their role and regulatory treatment should not be confused with conventional recycling. Waste-to-Oil Operators Waste-to-oil facilities process plastic waste through technologies that convert it into oil or related outputs. They are separately recognised in the notice under the PWP category. Industrial Composting Facilities Industrial composting is relevant particularly in the context of suitable compostable plastic waste. Again, this is a different processing route and should not be presented as if it were simply another name for recycling. What Does the Notice Mean for Plastic Raw-Material Businesses? Raw-material businesses can no longer treat EPR registration as an issue that belongs only to packaged-goods companies. The notice expressly includes: Importers of plastic raw material;  manufacturers of plastic raw materials; and  Sellers falling within the covered regulatory category.  For these businesses, the priority is correct classification. A company may manufacture raw material, import part of its requirement and sell material to other manufacturers. That can create more than one compliance question. Its internal review should therefore look at: the nature of the material;  whether it manufactures, imports or sells;  the registration category presently shown on the portal;  transactions with other regulated businesses; and  whether transaction reporting is being completed correctly.  What Does the Notice Mean for Compostable and Biodegradable Plastic Businesses? Manufacturers dealing with compostable or biodegradable plastic items are expressly mentioned in the Odisha notice. This does not mean the two categories are the same. A manufacturer should use the exact classification that applies to the product and should not casually describe a product as "biodegradable" or "compostable" simply because it is marketed as environmentally friendly. For this notice, the immediate point is registration. Product-specific certification or technical requirements, where applicable under other provisions, should be examined separately. Is There a Separate Registration Deadline? The public notice asks for immediate registration, but it does not set out another future calendar date by which every stakeholder must register.  Three dates or timing points should not be mixed: Event Timing Earlier EPR portal discontinued 28 June 2026 Odisha SPCB public notice issued 7 September 2026 Registration direction Immediate Separate later deadline Not expressly specified This matters because saying "registration is due by X date" without an official source would create a deadline that the notice does not provide. What Does the Notice Not Specify? The Odisha SPCB communication should be read for what it actually contains. It does not expressly introduce a new: application fee;  EPR target percentage;  Registration validity period;  fixed application-processing period;  environmental compensation amount;  monetary penalty;  separate transition period after 7 September 2026; or  future registration cut-off date.  Some of these subjects may be addressed elsewhere in the governing rules, amendments, guidelines, or CPCB procedures. They should not be attributed to this particular notice unless they actually appear in it. Immediate Compliance Checklist Compliance Area What to Check Responsibility Nature Entity classification Whether the company is a P, I, BO, manufacturer, seller or PWP Compliance/Legal Essential applicability review Portal registration Whether registration required for the entity is active Compliance Source-based requirement Migrated account Whether old account data is properly available Compliance/IT Recommended migration check Suppliers Whether relevant suppliers are registered Procurement/Compliance Practical control Buyers Whether relevant buyers are registered Sales/Compliance Practical control Transactions Whether purchases/sales can be reported Finance/Compliance Source-linked issue PWP relationships Whether waste-processing partners have the required status Sustainability/Compliance Practical compliance control Records Whether commercial and portal data match Finance/Compliance Recommended internal control Risks of Leaving the Issue Unresolved Regulatory Risk Odisha SPCB clearly says that non-compliance with the provisions referred to in the notice will attract action in accordance with the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. The notice itself does not state a fresh numerical penalty. That distinction should be maintained. Transaction-Reporting Problems An entity may find that transactions involving an unregistered counterparty cannot be recorded in the expected manner. This can turn a supplier-registration issue into the registered company's own reporting problem. Internal Data Gaps EPR reporting relies on commercial information. If sales, procurement and compliance teams maintain different versions of the same transaction data, reconciliation can take more time and create avoidable errors. Counterparty Disruption Registered businesses may increasingly prefer dealing with counterparties whose compliance position is clear because it makes regulatory reporting easier. That is a possible commercial effect of the notice, not a separate punishment imposed by the Board. Impact on Different Stakeholders Stakeholder Immediate Effect Main Concern Producers Registration position comes under sharper focus Missing or incorrect EPR registration Importers Packaging and raw-material activities need review Wrong entity classification Brand Owners Existing EPR responsibilities continue Reporting with unregistered counterparties MSMEs Cannot rely only on enterprise size Assuming registration is unnecessary Raw-material businesses Greater portal compliance responsibility Registration and transaction data Sellers Need to check whether their activity is covered Unclear applicability PWPs Processing activity linked with portal status Correct registration Procurement teams Supplier status becomes relevant Unregistered vendors Finance teams Commercial data supports EPR reporting Data mismatch Compliance teams Need coordination across functions Incomplete records Benefits of Keeping Common EPR Portal Compliance in Order Good portal compliance is mainly about reducing avoidable gaps. For a regulated business, it can help create: clearer visibility over registration status;  better coordination between commercial and compliance data;  more organised transaction reporting;  easier identification of unregistered counterparties;  cleaner records for annual reporting; and  a more structured approach to EPR responsibilities.  These are practical compliance benefits. They should not be presented as guaranteed savings or guaranteed protection from regulatory action. Challenges Businesses May Face Identifying the Right Category The first problem is often not filling the form. It is deciding which legal category applies. A company may perform two or three activities at the same time. Cleaning Up Migrated Data Businesses already present on the earlier portal may have to spend time reviewing migrated information and resolving mismatches. Following Up With Suppliers and Customers A company's own registration can be complete while its supply chain remains inconsistent. That means follow-up may be needed outside the compliance department. Managing Transaction Volumes Companies processing a large number of purchases and sales may need better internal controls so the data reported on the portal matches commercial records. Limited Compliance Resources in MSMEs Smaller units may not have a separate legal or environmental team. That makes correct classification and timely portal work more difficult, even though the registration issue still needs attention. Is the Direction Useful or an Added Burden? The answer depends largely on how organised the business already is. For a company with current registration, clean transaction records and registered counterparties, the direction may require only a targeted review. For a business that has postponed registration or never checked the EPR status of its suppliers and buyers, the work can be considerably larger. From the regulator's side, a common portal can improve visibility and make it harder for unregistered entities to remain outside the reporting chain. From the business side, the same system creates more responsibility for checking data and counterparties. So the real burden is not simply the existence of a portal. It is the need to make commercial transactions and regulatory records match. What Businesses Should Do Now 1. Confirm the Business Category Do not begin the compliance exercise by filling a registration form. Start by confirming whether the company is acting as a Producer, Importer, Brand Owner, manufacturer, seller, or Plastic Waste Processor. 2. Verify Registration In cases where registration is necessary, ensure that the business has been duly registered on the Common EPR Portal. 3. Check Migrated Information In case of a previous EPR account for the business, check the information post-migration. 4. Unregistered Counterparties Suppliers and buyers can be found in procurement and sales data. 5. Verify Transaction Reporting Capability Check if the transactions can be adequately reported using the portal. 6. Verify Correspondence Between Portal Information and Internal Information Information on sales, purchases, waste disposal, and regulatory compliance must be checked before submission. 7. Address Problems Promptly It is always best to solve problems pertaining to registration, classification, and transaction reporting before the number of transactions starts increasing. How Can Corpseed Help With Plastic EPR Registration Services? Plastic EPR compliance is easier to manage when the business first understands exactly where it fits in the regulatory chain. Corpseed's Plastic EPR Registration Services can support businesses that need help with applicability assessment, registration, portal compliance, and related EPR requirements. 1.    EPR Applicability Assessment Before starting registration, Corpseed can help review the company's activities and determine whether it falls within a relevant category such as: Producer;  Importer;  Brand Owner;  Plastic raw-material manufacturer;  Covered Seller; or  Plastic Waste Processor.  This is useful where the company carries out several activities and the correct regulatory position is not immediately clear. 2. CPCB Common EPR Portal Registration Support Where registration applies, Corpseed can assist with the registration process and organisation of the information required for the applicable filing. This support can be useful for newly covered entities as well as businesses that need help understanding their position after migration to the Common EPR Portal. 3. EPR Compliance Gap Assessment Existing registration does not always mean the entire compliance position is complete. Through EPR compliance services, Corpseed can help identify gaps involving: registration details;  entity classification;  portal records;  transaction reporting;  counterparty information; and  ongoing compliance responsibilities.  4. Transaction Reporting Support Where a business is facing difficulties because suppliers or buyers are unregistered, Corpseed can help review the compliance issue and identify the information that needs attention. The portal itself remains under CPCB's regulatory control so that no consultant can guarantee regulator approval or portal acceptance. 5. Supplier and Buyer EPR Compliance Review A counterparty review can help identify suppliers or customers whose registration status may affect portal reporting. This can be particularly useful for businesses with a large vendor network. 6. Plastic Waste Compliance Services Where the issue extends beyond registration, Corpseed can support businesses with wider plastic waste compliance services, including regulatory applicability reviews and ongoing documentation support. 7. Ongoing EPR Compliance Support For many businesses, EPR does not end once registration is received. Depending on the entity and activity, further work may involve transaction reporting, annual returns, records and continuing regulatory requirements. An experienced EPR registration consultant can help the business keep these activities organised while the company focuses on its day-to-day operations. Key Takeaways The 7 September 2026 Odisha SPCB notice puts the focus on a very practical issue: covered plastic businesses need to be properly registered on the Common EPR Portal, and unregistered entities can create problems for transaction reporting. The main points are: CPCB has moved plastic-packaging EPR activities to the Common EPR Portal.  The earlier portal was discontinued on 28 June 2026.  Existing user data was stated to have been migrated.  Producers, Importers, Brand Owners, relevant manufacturers, Sellers and Plastic Waste Processors are among the categories named in the notice.  Micro and small Producers are specifically referred to.  Entities covered under Clause 6.1 are told not to carry on business without the required registration.  Purchase and sale reporting involving unregistered entities is specifically addressed.  Stakeholders are asked to get unregistered suppliers and buyers registered so transaction reporting can continue.  The notice calls for immediate registration but does not provide a separate future calendar deadline.  Non-compliance may lead to action under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016, although this notice does not itself state a specific monetary penalty.  For companies still unsure about their category, registration status, or portal reporting, the first step should be an applicability review. Where professional assistance is needed, Plastic EPR Registration Services, CPCB EPR registration support, and ongoing EPR compliance assistance can help organise the process without treating every business as if it has identical obligations.