CBIC Clarifies CAROTAR Compliance for India–UK CETA; Form-I Not Required With Bill of Entry

“Indirect Tax I Indirect Tax Litigation I Customs & FTP I Central Licensing I Arbitration I Advisory”

Dated: 26.09.2026

CBIC Clarifies CAROTAR Compliance for India–UK CETA; Form-I Not Required With Bill of Entry

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) has issued an important clarification on the application of Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 (CAROTAR, 2020), particularly in relation to preferential tariff claims under the India–UK CETA and treatment of subsequent imports following an adverse origin determination.

Through Circular No. 43/2026-Customs dated 24 September 2026, CBIC has emphasised that Section 28DA and CAROTAR constitute India’s domestic framework for implementing Rules of Origin, but they must be applied consistently with the origin framework contained in the relevant Trade Agreement. Significantly, Rule 8(3) of CAROTAR, 2020 provides that where there is a conflict between CAROTAR and the Rules of Origin under a Trade Agreement, the latter will prevail.

Form-I Not Required With Bill of Entry Under India–UK CETA

One of the most significant clarifications concerns the requirement of Form-I for claiming preferential tariff treatment under the India–UK CETA.
CBIC has clarified that under the CETA, an Origin Declaration completed by the UK exporter or producer in the prescribed manner constitutes the proof of origin for claiming preferential tariff treatment on imports into India.
Therefore, where the preferential tariff claim is supported by a valid Origin Declaration, Customs is required to process the claim without insisting upon Form-I.

The Circular further categorically states:

Form-I under CAROTAR, 2020 is not required to be submitted with the Bill of Entry and cannot be treated as a precondition for allowing preferential tariff treatment.

CBIC has, in this regard, reiterated its earlier letter F. No. 15021/18/2020-(ICD) dated 13 November 2020.
This clarification is particularly significant for importers claiming concessional Customs duty under the India–UK CETA, as it distinguishes between the documentation required at the time of making the preferential claim and information that Customs may subsequently seek where there is a genuine origin-related concern.

When Can Customs Ask for Form-I Information?

CBIC has clarified that information specified in Form-I may still be sought, but only in defined circumstances.
Where a Bill of Entry is interdicted by the National Risk Management System (NRMS) for origin-related checks, and the proper officer has reason to believe that the applicable origin criteria have not been satisfied, the relevant information specified in Form-I may be sought from the importer under Section 28DA of the Customs Act read with Rule 5 of CAROTAR, 2020.

The distinction is therefore important:

Situation	CBIC Clarification
Filing of Bill of Entry with valid CETA Origin Declaration	Form-I not required
Form-I as a precondition for preferential tariff treatment	Not permissible
Bill of Entry interdicted by NRMS for origin-related checks	Additional information may be sought
Proper officer has reason to believe origin criteria are not met	Relevant Form-I information may be called for under Section 28DA read with Rule 5
Importer unable to furnish confidential information of exporter/producer	Cannot, by itself, justify denial of preferential tariff treatment
Available information insufficient to determine origin	Verification may be undertaken through the exporting Party’s Verification Authority

Importer Not Required to Obtain Confidential Information From UK Exporter or Producer

Another significant clarification concerns confidential manufacturing or commercial information that may be held by the foreign exporter or producer.
CBIC states that under the India–UK CETA, the importer is not required to obtain confidential information from the exporter or producer.
Consequently, the importer’s inability to furnish such confidential information cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for denying preferential tariff treatment.
The importer is required to furnish the information actually made available by the exporter or producer.
Where the available information remains insufficient for Customs to determine origin, the Circular provides that verification may instead be undertaken through the Verification Authority of the exporting Party in accordance with the Trade Agreement.
This clarification reinforces the distinction between information reasonably available to an Indian importer and confidential production information held by an overseas manufacturer.

CBIC Clarifies Section 28DA(11) for Subsequent Imports of “Identical Goods”

The Circular also addresses another important issue: application of an earlier adverse origin determination to subsequent imports.
Under Section 28DA(11) of the Customs Act, 1962, an earlier determination denying preferential tariff treatment may be applied to subsequent imports of identical goods from the same producer or exporter, unless sufficient information is furnished to establish that the subsequent goods satisfy the applicable country-of-origin criteria.

CBIC has now clarified that goods cannot be treated as “identical” merely because they have the same:

description;
tariff classification;
exporter;
producer; or
technical characteristics.
Before applying an earlier adverse determination to a subsequent consignment, the importer must be provided an opportunity to furnish additional information relating to the subsequent imports. If that information establishes compliance with the applicable country-of-origin criteria, the earlier adverse determination must not be applied.

Material Differences Require Independent Examination

CBIC has gone a step further by clarifying the position where subsequent goods differ from the goods covered by an earlier determination.
Where there is a difference in any material fact relevant to origin, the current preferential tariff claim must be examined independently on its own merits.
Where necessary, such a claim may be verified afresh in accordance with Section 28DA and the Rules of Origin under the applicable Trade Agreement.
This means that an adverse determination relating to an earlier import cannot automatically become a blanket basis for rejecting all subsequent preferential claims merely because the tariff classification, exporter, producer or product description remains the same.

Trade Agreement Rules Take Precedence in Case of Conflict

The broader legal principle underlying Circular No. 43/2026-Customs is CBIC’s direction that the domestic CAROTAR framework must operate consistently with the particular Rules of Origin contained in the relevant Trade Agreement.
The Circular records that each Trade Agreement contains its own framework for determining and verifying origin, whereas Section 28DA and CAROTAR provide the domestic mechanism for implementing that framework.
Accordingly, CBIC specifically refers to Rule 8(3) of CAROTAR, 2020, under which, in the event of a conflict between CAROTAR and the Rules of Origin under the Trade Agreement, the Rules of Origin under the Trade Agreement prevail.

Key Legal Provisions Referred to in the Circular

Provision	Relevance
Section 28DA, Customs Act, 1962	Statutory framework governing claims for preferential rate of duty under trade agreements
Section 28DA(11)	Application of an earlier adverse origin determination to subsequent imports of identical goods from the same producer/exporter
Section 5, Customs Tariff Act, 1975	Basis for notifying Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements
Rule 5, CAROTAR, 2020	Relevant to seeking information from importer in appropriate origin-verification cases
Rule 8(3), CAROTAR, 2020	Trade Agreement’s Rules of Origin prevail where they conflict with CAROTAR
India–UK CETA Rules of Origin	Governing framework for proof, determination and verification of origin for CETA preferential claims

Compliance Impact for Importers and Customs Brokers

Circular No. 43/2026-Customs has important practical consequences for importers, Customs Brokers and businesses making preferential tariff claims.
For an India–UK CETA claim supported by a valid Origin Declaration, Form-I should not be treated as a routine document required to accompany the Bill of Entry. At the same time, importers should maintain origin-related information made available by their UK exporter or producer because additional information may be sought where an NRMS-interdicted consignment gives the proper officer reason to believe that the applicable origin criteria have not been fulfilled.
Equally important, Customs authorities should not automatically apply an earlier adverse origin determination to later consignments solely because the goods bear the same HSN classification, description or originate from the same producer or exporter. The subsequent consignment must satisfy the statutory conditions for treatment as identical goods, and the importer must receive an opportunity to provide additional information.

CBIC Directs Uniform Implementation

CBIC has directed field formations to bring the Circular to the notice of Customs officers and the trade and to ensure its uniform implementation. Any difficulties arising in implementation may be brought to the Board’s notice.

Key Takeaway

Circular No. 43/2026-Customs significantly clarifies the interface between Section 28DA, CAROTAR, 2020 and the Rules of Origin contained in India’s Trade Agreements.

For India–UK CETA imports, a valid Origin Declaration is the prescribed proof of origin, and Form-I is neither required to accompany the Bill of Entry nor a precondition for preferential tariff treatment. Form-I information may be sought in the specified risk-based circumstances under Section 28DA read with Rule 5 of CAROTAR.

The Circular also restricts mechanical application of earlier adverse origin determinations to subsequent consignments and requires an opportunity for the importer to establish that later goods satisfy the relevant origin criteria.

In case you face any issues related to Indirect Tax-Customs, GST, Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Arbitration matters and Central Licensing and related advisory matters in India then please feel free to get in touch with SJ EXIM Services.

We offer Legal advice and litigation support in matters related to Indirect Tax-Customs, FTP, other Indirect Tax matters & Arbitration law, all sorts of Central licensing and related matters. Come and explore the new way of doing business with us!

We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Source: CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Customs CircularDownload

Connect with us for more-

@ Team S J EXIM SERVICES, New Delhi, IN

CP: Ms. Shubhra Jha, Founder

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005693

Web: www.sjexim.services

EMAIL: operations@sjexim.services I shubhra@sjexim.services

Facebook: www.facebook.com/sjeximservices

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/90794255/admin/feed/posts/