admin
Banks must close eligible EDPMS/IDPMS entries in accordance with RBI directions. Neither RBI nor FEDAI appears to have prescribed any standard charge specifically for such closure. Whether discharge of this regulatory obligation can itself be treated as a service rendered to the customer is a moot point. The real test is whether a bank can refuse to close an otherwise eligible entry merely because the customer disputes or declines to pay the charge.
In my view, it cannot. The bank may separately recover any charge validly leviable under its published tariff made known to its customer but it should not keep the EDPMS/IDPMS entry open solely because that charge remains unpaid.
We imported a chemical under ITC(HS) Code 29159099. Customs assessed and cleared the Bill of Entry, but our bank has declined to remit payment because DGFT Notification No. 24/2026-27 dated July 22 shows the code as deleted. What should we do?
The deletion in the notification appears inadvertent. Section 136(c)(i) of the Finance Act, 2026, read with its fourth schedule, made only two changes under heading 2915. It replaced tariff item 29159010 with tariff items 29159011 and 29159012 for acetyl chloride and propionyl chloride, respectively, and inserted tariff item 29159096 for triethyl orthoformate after tariff item 29159095. It did not delete tariff item 29159099, which covers “other” products under the relevant subheading. Therefore, 29159099 continues in the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. DGFT Notification No. 24/2026-27, although issued
to align ITC(HS) with the Finance Act, incorrectly shows this tariff item as deleted.
Ask the bank to process the remittance on the strength of the assessed Bill of Entry, supplier’s invoice, product literature and relevant extract of the Finance Act. Emphasise that the Bill of Entry remains valid and need not be amended. Simultaneously, represent to DGFT for a corrigendum restoring 29159099 with “free” import policy retrospectively from 22 July 2026 and seek an interim clarification for submission to the bank.
Our licence for restricted items issued by DGFT has expired unutilised because the circumstances existing when we applied had changed. Must we surrender it or comply with any other formalities? No. There is no requirement to surrender a licence that has expired wholly unutilised, unless the licence itself stipulates such a condition. No other compliance is prescribed.
Has DGFT acted on the information sought from exporters regarding non-tariff measures through Trade Notice No. 18/2025-26 dated November 22, 2025?
Yes. The Trade Notice said that the information was sought to map mandatory and voluntary non-tariff measures, including certification, testing, inspection, audit, labelling and other regulatory requirements applicable to Indian exports. Subsequently, the government launched the Trade Regulations, Accreditation and Compliance Enablement (TRACE) scheme for reimbursement of specified testing, inspection, and certification expenses incurred by eligible MSME exporters. Please see Trade Notice No. 26/2025-26 dated February 20 and Trade Notice No. 09/2026-27 dated July 1 for details.
Business Standard invites readers’ SME queries related to GST, export and import matters. You can write to us at smechat@bsmail.in
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings