4 min readDec 18, 2025 10:18 AM IST
First published on: Dec 18, 2025 at 10:18 AM IST
India’s decision to withdraw quality control orders (QCOs) on a wide basket of industrial raw materials marks one of the most meaningful regulatory resets in recent years. In a manufacturing economy where delays and compliance costs can quietly determine competitiveness, the rollback is both timely and necessary. It acknowledges what industry has long argued: Mandatory certification is a blunt instrument when applied to low-risk, widely traded inputs.
As detailed by NITI Aayog’s recent report, over the past few years, QCOs have grown from a targeted instrument of quality assurance into a sprawling system of mandatory certification, growing from 70 a decade ago to over 790 earlier this year. Intended to keep substandard imports out, they increasingly swept in a wide range of industrial inputs: Polymers, fibre intermediates, aluminium and copper products, and even steel grades that pose no direct safety risk.
No major manufacturing economy regulates such raw materials through compulsory audits. In the EU and US, conformity requirements overwhelmingly apply to finished goods and safety-critical items, with quality for intermediate inputs managed through voluntary technical standards and contractual testing.
India’s approach carried high costs. When foreign suppliers — including those in Japan, Korea and the EU — declined to undergo factory inspections for low-volume shipments, Indian manufacturers were left with fewer sourcing options and higher input prices. MSMEs in particular struggled with the paperwork, delays and limited BIS testing capacity. For export-facing sectors like man-made fibre textiles, engineering goods and electronics assembly, the QCO regime became a barrier, eroding the price-competitiveness India needs to hold its own against Vietnam, China and Bangladesh.
Against this backdrop, the recent rollback is a sensible reset. It acknowledges that quality cannot be legislated by expanding the list of items under mandatory certification. Quality depends on identifying the right risks and regulating where safety or consumer harm is genuinely at stake. The NITI Aayog report argued, persuasively, that India’s standards regime must follow global practice: Regulate construction steel, pressure vessels, electrical equipment and other high-stakes products, but allow market mechanisms and voluntary standards to govern bulk raw materials.
The withdrawal, notified on November 13, removes compulsory BIS certification for 14 products under the chemicals and petrochemicals department and six under the mines ministry. These include some of the most widely used intermediates in the country’s manufacturing value chain. For manufacturers across textiles, plastics and engineering goods, this is a real easing of pressure, not a symbolic gesture.
This signals a maturing regulatory philosophy. A country that can unwind overregulation is one that understands the complexities of modern supply chains. For industries targeted under the PLI schemes — electronics, specialty steel, technical textiles — the decision offers much-needed breathing room. Manufacturers cannot build globally competitive products if they cannot reliably source globally competitive inputs.
None of this means India should dilute its quality ambitions. On the contrary, a sharper, risk-based framework will make quality enforcement more credible. Mandatory certification should be strengthened in areas with clear consumer or public-safety implications. At the same time, the government should invest in expanding testing capacity, speeding up certification timelines and conducting impact assessments before adding new products to the QCO list.
The lesson is straightforward: Competitiveness and quality must advance together. Regulation that raises costs without raising safety standards undermines the very manufacturing strategy India is trying to build. In an era where global manufacturers value reliability as much as cost, India’s willingness to recalibrate sends a positive signal to investors and trading partners alike.
The revocation marks a clear shift toward a more pragmatic, globally aligned quality regime. If India continues on this path — with quality regulation that is risk-based, proportionate and grounded in capacity — it will be better positioned to compete in the industries that will define the next decade.
Krishna is distinguished professor of International Economics and Business at Johns Hopkins University. Sharma is research associate, International Economics at NCAER
The revocation marks a clear shift toward a more pragmatic, globally aligned quality regime. 
Share
