CBIC's Circular 28/2026: How India Is Cutting Red Tape on Export Sample Testing

A clarification from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs addresses a long-standing exporter complaint: duplicate, mandatory testing through Revenue Laboratories even when valid NABL or EPC-accredited test reports already exist, and signals a broader shift toward trust-based, risk-calibrated customs procedure.

The Complaint That Triggered Reform

Export competitiveness is often determined less by tariff policy and more by the everyday friction exporters face at the procedural level. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) received representations highlighting precisely this kind of friction: even when exporters already had access to accredited laboratories and held valid test reports, customs procedure required that samples first pass through Revenue Laboratories before clearance, causing both delays and, in effect, duplicate testing of consignments that had already been certified by recognised accredited bodies.

This is not a trivial inefficiency. For exporters operating on tight shipment schedules, particularly in sectors with perishable goods, time-sensitive contracts, or seasonal demand windows, every additional day spent in a CRCL queue represents real commercial cost: missed shipping windows, demurrage charges, and lost competitiveness against exporters from jurisdictions with faster customs clearance.

The Regulatory History Behind This Reform

CBIC's response did not emerge in isolation. The Board has previously issued multiple circulars addressing the question of sample testing outside CRCL. Circular 43/2017-Customs, dated November 16, 2017, and Circular 11/2018-Customs, dated May 17, 2018, identified specific items whose samples cannot be tested at CRCL laboratories, and correspondingly identified alternative laboratories functioning under other ministries, departments, and organisations where such samples could instead be tested. Circular 46/2020-Customs, dated October 15, 2020, went further, prescribing detailed guidelines for the testing of outside samples by Revenue Laboratories themselves.

Circular No. 28/2026-Customs, issued under F. No. 401/24/2026-Cus.III by the Customs Policy Wing, builds directly on this regulatory lineage but addresses a distinct and more fundamental question: should exporters who have already obtained credible, accredited testing for destination-country compliance purposes be forced to undergo a second, duplicative round of government testing as a default procedural requirement?

Exporters often voluntarily obtain testing and quality certification of export consignments to comply with technical regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, product standards, and other compliance requirements prescribed by the countries where samples are exported.

The Clarification: Trust, Calibrated by Risk

CBIC's answer, set out in the Circular, is a calibrated one. The Board has clarified that, in respect of export consignments, exporters may continue to voluntarily obtain test reports from NABL-accredited laboratories, laboratories accredited and recognised by Export Promotion Councils (EPCs), or other recognised agencies, for the purpose of fulfilling regulatory requirements of the destination country. Critically, in cases where such a test report is submitted for compliance purposes, and there is no risk-based intervention or intelligence involved, the proper officer shall consider the accredited test report without mandatorily sending the sample to CRCL.

This is, in effect, a presumption of reliability extended to a defined set of accredited third-party laboratories, NABL accreditation, EPC recognition, or other recognised agency status in the absence of any specific risk signal. It represents a meaningful procedural shift: from a default posture of mandatory government re-verification, to one of conditional trust in established, internationally recognised accreditation frameworks, with exceptions reserved for cases where customs intelligence or risk profiling specifically warrants closer scrutiny.

What Remains Unchanged  And Why That Matters

The Circular is carefully bound in two important respects. First, in cases involving risk-based intervention or intelligence, the proper officer must continue to follow the existing procedure for withdrawal and testing of samples, including referral to CRCL or other accredited laboratories as per extant instructions, meaning the reform does not weaken customs enforcement capability where genuine risk indicators exist. Second, and equally significant, the existing procedure for drawal and testing of samples of import consignments shall continue without any change, with import samples continuing to be drawn and sent to CRCL or other accredited laboratories exactly as per current instructions.

This dual preservation risk-based export testing and the entirety of import testing procedure signals that CBIC's reform is narrowly targeted at removing unnecessary friction for low-risk, already-certified export consignments, rather than a broad deregulation of customs testing oversight. This is a hallmark of well-calibrated trade facilitation reform: removing friction where trust has already been established through credible third-party accreditation, while preserving full enforcement capability where risk genuinely warrants it.

Implementation: What Happens Next

The Circular directs jurisdictional Principal Chief Commissioners, Chief Commissioners, Principal Commissioners, and Commissioners of Customs to take necessary action to sensitize officers under their jurisdiction regarding this clarification as an important operational step, since the practical benefit of any such circular depends entirely on consistent ground-level implementation by customs officers nationwide. The Board has also directed that suitable trade notices be issued by field formations to inform relevant stakeholders, and has invited any implementation difficulties to be brought to the Board's notice.

For India's exporters across sectors ranging from agriculture and food products to chemicals, textiles, and engineering goods, this clarification removes a recurring source of delay and cost that had no clear corresponding benefit in terms of additional quality assurance, given that the underlying testing had already been performed by accredited bodies. As India continues to position itself as a more efficient, trade-friendly jurisdiction, complementing broader initiatives around SEZ reform, GIFT City's trade facilitation ecosystem, and digital customs modernisation, incremental but meaningful procedural reforms like Circular 28/2026 contribute directly to the cumulative ease of doing business that determines India's competitiveness in global export markets.

DISCLAIMER

This article is published for informational, educational, and analytical purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, customs compliance advice, or regulatory guidance.

All information in this article is based on Circular No. 28/2026-Customs, F. No. 401/24/2026-Cus.III, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, along with referenced prior circulars (43/2017-Customs, 11/2018-Customs, and 46/2020-Customs).

The application of this clarification to specific export consignments depends on risk assessment, commodity classification, HS code, and intelligence inputs available to customs authorities at the time of export. This article does not constitute a guarantee of exemption from CRCL testing in any specific case.

Exporters and trade stakeholders should refer to the official circular text, subsequent trade notices issued by jurisdictional field formations, and consult qualified customs brokers, trade compliance professionals, or legal counsel for consignment-specific and jurisdiction-specific guidance.

Regulatory provisions referenced in this article are subject to amendment, clarification, or rescission by CBIC. Readers should verify current applicability through official CBIC and Department of Revenue communications.

The publisher is not a customs broker, law firm, or government authority. Nothing in this article constitutes official regulatory guidance.