Are India's regulatory requirments affecting global market access?

India is entering an important phase of global economic integration. With an expanding network of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), bilateral economic partnerships and international investment initiatives, the country is positioning itself as a major global manufacturing and trading destination. The Government of India has undertaken significant initiatives to promote Make in India, attract foreign investment, strengthen domestic manufacturing and integrate Indian businesses into international supply chains. However, an important policy issue is emerging among international manufacturers, Indian importers and industry associations: whether the growing application of mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification and Quality Control Orders (QCOs) is being adequately aligned with India's ambitious international trade strategy.
The objective of BIS certification is unquestionably important. Quality assurance, consumer protection, product safety and standardisation are essential for a developing manufacturing economy. However, as India signs trade agreements to reduce tariffs and improve market access, it is equally important to ensure that technical regulations and certification procedures do not create unintended difficulties for genuine international suppliers. A foreign manufacturer may receive preferential customs duty under an FTA, but if the product requires extensive factory inspections, additional testing, certification expenses and lengthy administrative procedures, the commercial advantage of the agreement may be considerably reduced. Tariff liberalisation and regulatory facilitation must therefore progress together.
The expansion of India's mandatory quality certification framework has been substantial. According to government-reported figures, India had 14 QCOs covering 106 products in 2014. By March 2025, the number had increased to 187 QCOs covering 769 products. Under the Foreign Manufacturers Certification Scheme, overseas manufacturers producing goods covered by mandatory QCOs generally need to obtain the applicable BIS licence before supplying the Indian market. The process can involve overseas factory inspections, product testing, appointment of an Authorised Indian Representative, technical documentation and recurring compliance expenses. Parliamentary information indicates that BIS granted 369 licences to foreign manufacturers in 2022–23, 414 in 2023–24 and 526 in 2024–25. While this demonstrates that international manufacturers are obtaining certification, there is no consolidated public information on the number of applications pending, rejected or withdrawn, or the number of companies that have postponed their entry into India.
A September 2025 working paper published by the Centre for Social and Economic Progress, titled Decoding India's Quality Control Orders, examined the economic implications of mandatory certification. The research estimated that imports of affected products declined by approximately 13 per cent in the first year following QCO notification and around 24 per cent over the longer term. For intermediate goods, the estimated long-term reduction was approximately 30 per cent. These are econometric estimates of trade effects rather than direct calculations of business losses. Nevertheless, they underline the importance of evaluating how certification requirements influence access to industrial inputs, manufacturing costs and competition.
The issue is no longer confined to Indian importers. Manufacturers and business associations from Sweden, Norway, Thailand and several European economies have raised concerns regarding certification procedures and their implications for access to the Indian market. The Business Climate Survey for Swedish Companies in India 2026, which covered 213 respondents, reported that 62 per cent of participating companies experienced some impact from QCO requirements, while 37 per cent reported a significant or very significant impact. Swedish companies highlighted challenges relating to overseas factory inspections, documentation, testing requirements and uncertainty regarding regulatory procedures. An earlier Business Climate Survey for 2025 also identified regulations as a trade barrier for a section of Swedish businesses. These findings indicate that regulatory predictability is an important consideration for European manufacturers evaluating their Indian operations and supply chains.
Norway presents another important dimension, particularly following the India–EFTA Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement, signed on March 10, 2024, and implemented on October 1, 2025. The agreement between India and the European Free Trade Association countries—Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein—aims to expand trade and investment and improve access to each other's markets. More than 90 per cent of Norwegian exports to India are expected to become tariff-free after the applicable tariff phase-out periods. However, tariff concessions do not automatically exempt products from mandatory Indian technical regulations. Norwegian manufacturers supplying industrial materials, metals, machinery, specialised equipment and other regulated products must still comply with applicable Indian certification requirements. There is no consolidated public figure establishing how many Norwegian companies have been unable to export specifically because of BIS, but the distinction between preferential customs access and practical regulatory access deserves attention.
The situation involving Thailand provides a more measurable example. Thailand is an important supplier of synthetic fibres and industrial materials to India. According to industry reporting published in July 2024, approximately 65 per cent of India's polyester staple fibre imports in FY2022–23 originated from China and Thailand. At that time, only three Thai manufacturing units had reportedly obtained BIS certification. India's polyester staple fibre imports subsequently declined from approximately ₹917 crore in FY2022–23 to ₹520 crore in FY2023–24, a reduction of around 43 per cent. In the viscose staple fibre segment, imports declined from approximately ₹2,033 crore to ₹710 crore, a reduction of around 65 per cent. Indonesia and Singapore were important suppliers of viscose fibre, but the reported absence of certified manufacturing facilities in those countries created additional supply concerns at the time. These developments affected the availability of imported fibres for Indian spinners, weavers and textile manufacturers. Although several market factors influence import values, the certification issue was a significant concern raised by downstream industry representatives.
European manufacturers have also raised questions through formal channels at the World Trade Organization. The European Union has highlighted difficulties involving products such as toys, viscose staple fibres, furniture, cookware and industrial materials. Its concerns have included overseas factory inspections, additional testing requirements, certification timelines and the recognition of existing international conformity assessment systems. At the WTO Council for Trade in Goods meeting on May 20, 2026, the United Kingdom raised concerns regarding India's QCO implementation. Indonesia and other trading partners have also sought greater transparency and predictable procedures. These discussions should be viewed as opportunities for technical cooperation rather than as disagreements over India's legitimate right to establish quality standards.
The paper and packaging industry provides one of the most significant examples of the relationship between international trade and domestic manufacturing. India has approximately 850–900 paper mills, of which around 550 were reported to be operational in industry estimates during 2025. According to the Indian Paper Manufacturers Association, paper and paperboard imports reached approximately 2.05 million tonnes in FY2024–25, valued at nearly ₹15,000 crore. China accounted for approximately 27 per cent of imports, while ASEAN countries represented around 20 per cent. The association also reported that imports from ASEAN increased by approximately 14 per cent during April–September 2025, reaching around 2.07 lakh tonnes compared with 1.82 lakh tonnes in the corresponding previous period. Indian paper manufacturers have invested more than ₹30,000 crore in recent years in modernisation, capacity expansion, energy efficiency and cleaner production technologies. The sector supports textbook publishing, commercial printing, corrugated packaging, e-commerce, tissue products, industrial paper and packaging materials, in addition to a substantial recycling and distribution ecosystem. Growing imports offer consumers and converters access to competitive prices and specialised grades, but they also create competitive pressure on domestic mills, particularly smaller manufacturers facing higher energy, freight and financing costs.
The ASEAN–India Trade in Goods Agreement, implemented on January 1, 2010, is particularly relevant to the paper industry. Preferential tariffs have improved market access for eligible products originating in Southeast Asian countries. According to industry estimates, ASEAN paper imports into India increased from approximately 2.7 lakh tonnes in FY2022–23 to around 5.1 lakh tonnes in FY2023–24. The subsequent increase in imports has prompted domestic manufacturers to seek a closer examination of tariff concessions, rules of origin and the competitive conditions facing Indian mills. The issue is not whether India should restrict legitimate paper imports, but whether domestic manufacturers and international suppliers are operating under transparent and appropriately balanced trade conditions.
The wider India–ASEAN trade relationship also deserves attention. According to Department of Commerce figures, India's exports to ASEAN were approximately US$41.21 billion in FY2023–24, while imports stood at US$79.66 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of approximately US$38.46 billion. Published trade-data analysis for FY2024–25 places exports at around US$38.96 billion and imports at US$84.16 billion, taking the deficit to approximately US$45.20 billion. This widening imbalance raises questions about India's export competitiveness and the extent to which preferential trade arrangements are translating into balanced manufacturing opportunities. The ongoing review of the ASEAN–India agreement provides an opportunity to improve rules of origin, address tariff circumvention, examine sensitive manufacturing sectors, improve market access for Indian exports and strengthen technical cooperation. The objective should be to make regional trade integration more balanced rather than reverse the benefits of economic cooperation.
The laundry and household appliance sector also illustrates India's dependence on international sourcing. According to the DPIIT Annual Report 2024–25, India's washing-machine imports under HS Code 8450 were valued at approximately US$166.15 million in FY2023–24, compared with exports of approximately US$74.74 million. During April–October 2024, imports amounted to approximately US$126.01 million and exports to US$59.21 million. The sector includes household washing machines, commercial laundry equipment, motors, pumps, electronic controls and specialised washing components. Mandatory quality requirements for relevant domestic clothes-washing appliances have been introduced, while the June 2026 Transition Facilitation (Quality Control) Order provided an alternative compliance pathway for eligible manufacturers under specified conditions. This indicates that regulatory facilitation and quality assurance can be addressed together. The broader cleaning and detergent industry also depends on international supplies of specialised chemicals, surfactants and industrial washing preparations. DPIIT's trade data for FY2023–24 recorded exports of approximately US$163.42 million and imports of US$153 million under HS 3401, while under HS 3402 exports were approximately US$599.35 million and imports US$364.03 million. These products are important for commercial laundries, hotels, hospitals, textile processors and industrial cleaning operations.
The machinery and engineering sector presents an even larger economic dimension. India is seeking to expand manufacturing across infrastructure, construction, textiles, paper, packaging, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, electronics and engineering. These industries require advanced imported machinery, automation systems, specialised components and electrical equipment. An analysis by LKS Attorneys using Ministry of Commerce trade data estimated that imports within the scope of the original Machinery and Electrical Equipment Safety Omnibus Technical Regulation, 2024, amounted to approximately US$28.86 billion in FY2024–25. Major categories included low-voltage switchgear valued at US$5.40 billion, rotary electrical machines at US$2.30 billion, construction and building machinery at US$2.35 billion, mining and earthmoving equipment at US$2.07 billion, metal-cutting machines at US$1.95 billion, compressors at US$1.94 billion and power semiconductor converters at US$1.91 billion. It is important to note that the original omnibus regulation was withdrawn by the Ministry of Heavy Industries on January 16, 2026, and should not be presented as a currently operative blanket certification requirement. Nevertheless, the experience demonstrates why technical regulations affecting large categories of industrial equipment require adequate consultation, clear implementation timelines and consideration of domestic manufacturing capacity. Access to advanced machinery is essential for factory modernisation, productivity and technology transfer.
The copper industry provides another important example of the possible consequences of certification-related supply disruptions. India's Copper Quality Control Order became effective on December 1, 2024. Japan was a major supplier of refined copper cathodes, accounting for approximately 69 per cent of India's import volume in FY2023–24. Average monthly imports reportedly declined from around 27,000 tonnes between April and November 2024 to approximately 2,000 tonnes between December 2024 and February 2025, with imports in January 2025 falling to 611 tonnes. Downstream manufacturers raised concerns regarding the availability of copper for electrical wires, cables, transformers and other industrial applications. Industry associations warned that approximately one lakh tonnes of supply could be affected over three months if Japanese shipments did not resume. Annual refined copper imports declined from approximately 363,000 tonnes valued at ₹24,552 crore in FY2023–24 to 239,000 tonnes valued at ₹19,134 crore in FY2024–25. This represents a decline of approximately 124,000 tonnes and ₹5,418 crore in import value. However, the entire reduction cannot be attributed to BIS, as domestic production and new refining capacity also influenced imports. The Ministry of Mines subsequently reported that supplies had stabilised. The episode nevertheless demonstrates the importance of coordinating regulatory implementation with domestic availability and industrial requirements.
The consequences of certification delays can extend beyond the value of imported goods. Importers may face additional demurrage, detention, container rental and port storage expenses. Manufacturers may experience production delays, higher working-capital requirements, contractual penalties and additional sourcing costs. Small and medium-sized businesses are particularly vulnerable because they generally have limited financial flexibility and fewer alternative suppliers. The CSEP research also recorded industry-reported certification expenses of approximately ₹10,000–₹15,000 per consignment in certain cases. However, a consolidated nationwide government figure establishing the number of shipments detained specifically because of pending BIS approvals, their total declared import value and the associated business losses is not publicly available in the information reviewed. A comprehensive assessment by BIS, Indian Customs, port authorities and the Ministry of Commerce would help establish the actual impact. Publication of the number of affected Bills of Entry, containers, average delay periods, demurrage expenses and sector-wise certification applications would bring greater transparency to the discussion.
India has an opportunity to address these concerns through a more facilitative regulatory framework without compromising product quality. Mutual Recognition Agreements with trusted trading partners, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Australia and other economies, could reduce duplication where equivalent international testing and certification systems can be established. Fixed timelines for overseas factory inspections and certification approvals, simplified procedures for foreign MSMEs, longer validity for consistently compliant manufacturers and time-bound exemptions for specialised industrial inputs unavailable domestically in sufficient quantities could also be considered. Before introducing new QCOs, an assessment of domestic manufacturing capacity, import dependence, alternative suppliers, downstream industry requirements and potential MSME costs would help ensure that regulations are proportionate and commercially practical.
The ASEAN–India agreement and India's emerging trade partnerships with the European Union, EFTA and other economies provide an opportunity to take this discussion forward through formal regulatory cooperation. India should continue improving the quality of its domestic manufacturing base while ensuring that international suppliers can participate in the Indian market through transparent and predictable procedures. The success of an FTA should ultimately be measured not only by the tariff concessions negotiated but also by the actual commercial opportunities available to manufacturers, importers, exporters and investors.
India's ambition to become a global manufacturing and trading hub requires a balanced approach. Domestic industry needs a competitive environment, access to international technology and quality-compliant raw materials, while consumers require safe and reliable products. These objectives are complementary rather than contradictory. BIS certification should remain an important instrument of quality assurance, with its implementation designed to support rather than unnecessarily complicate international trade.
As India expands its global economic partnerships, the priority should be to create an environment in which Indian manufacturers can compete internationally and genuine foreign manufacturers can contribute to India's growth. Quality, regulatory predictability, international cooperation and competitive manufacturing must move forward together.
MAKE IN INDIA. PARTNER WITH THE WORLD. GROW TOGETHER

(Ankit Jain, Trade Commissioner – India–EU Trade Council)