All India Gem & Jewellery Domestic Council (GJC) has expressed strong concern over the increase in gold hallmarking charges from Rs 45 to Rs 75 per article and has urged the Government and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to immediately review the decision and retain the existing charge pending stakeholder consultation.

The increase has been notified through the Bureau of Indian Standards (Hallmarking) Amendment Regulations, 2026, dated 14 September 2026. Under the amended Schedule IV, the hallmarking fee payable by jewellers to recognised Assaying and Hallmarking Centres (AHCs) for gold articles has been fixed at Rs 75 per article.

This represents an increase of approximately 67% in one stroke over the prevailing charge of Rs 45 per article.

GJC has consistently supported hallmarking as an important measure for ensuring purity assurance, transparency and consumer protection. Its objection is therefore not to hallmarking, but to the sharp escalation in the cost of mandatory compliance at a stage when hallmarking volumes and geographical coverage have substantially expanded.

According to Government data (PIB), more than 60 crore gold articles had been hallmarked with HUID between 1 July 2021 and 5 March 2026, while mandatory hallmarking had progressively expanded to 380 districts by March 2026. BIS also stated that more than 30 enforcement actions against jewellers were undertaken during 2025-26.

GJC believes that such growth in volumes should ordinarily lead to greater efficiencies and economies of scale. A 67% increase in the per-article charge therefore deserves a transparent assessment of the underlying cost structure before being passed on to the trade and ultimately to the consumer.

EXISTING MALPRACTICE AND ENFORCEMENT ISSUES REQUIRE PRIORITY ATTENTION

GJC is concerned that increasing the prescribed hallmarking fee does not address the more fundamental issues already affecting the hallmarking ecosystem. The Council has received industry feedback regarding aggressive discounting, commercial inducements and unhealthy competition among certain service providers for securing hallmarking volumes. Where the prescribed rate itself is not uniformly realised in practice, merely increasing the notified fee from Rs 45 to Rs 75 may not resolve the underlying viability and governance concerns.

More importantly, BIS’s own enforcement actions show that fake, unauthorised and non-compliant hallmarking remains a continuing concern across the country. Recent actions include seizure of non-hallmarked jewellery at Ambattur, Chennai in September 2026; detection of over 5.4 kg of allegedly fake-hallmarked jewellery at Panruti and an unauthorised hallmarking centre at Chidambaram in 2025; seizure of around 1.6 kg of non-compliant gold jewellery at Hyderabad in June 2026; raids involving alleged fake hallmarking and invalid registration at Ahmedabad in July 2026; action against alleged fake hallmarking centres at Guwahati and Goalpara, Assam, including seizure of laser-marking equipment and spurious BIS-logo material; and seizure of jewellery bearing spurious hallmark symbols without valid HUID at a BIS-registered jeweller in Kanyakumari in July 2026.

These actions demonstrate that the immediate priority should be stronger surveillance, stricter enforcement and greater discipline within the hallmarking ecosystem. Increasing the charge payable by compliant jewellers cannot substitute for addressing fake hallmarking, unauthorised operators and other market distortions.

HIGHER COMPLIANCE COST CAN WIDEN THE FORMAL–INFORMAL DIFFERENTIAL

GJC further cautions that the economics of compliance cannot be considered in isolation.

Whenever the cost of operating within a formal regulatory framework increases materially, while unauthorised or informal alternatives continue to exist, the economic differential between compliant and non-compliant activity widens.

The objective of public policy should therefore be to make genuine compliance easier and economically preferable, rather than increase the cost advantage available to persons operating outside the prescribed framework.

Hallmarking is a mandatory consumer-protection mechanism. It should consequently be affordable enough to encourage universal compliance, while enforcement should be strong enough to make non-compliance commercially unattractive.

Increasing the hallmarking charge from Rs 45 to Rs 75 — without simultaneously addressing fake hallmarking, unauthorised centres and other market distortions — risks producing precisely the opposite incentive.

Impact is disproportionately higher on lightweight jewellery

The burden is particularly significant in the case of lightweight and lower-value jewellery.

BIS itself clarifies that hallmarking charges are levied per article irrespective of the weight of the jewellery.

Accordingly, the same Rs 75 charge applies whether the article weighs one gram or substantially more. The percentage impact of the fee is therefore much greater on lightweight products commonly purchased by middle-income and mass-market consumers.

At a time when gold prices are already at elevated levels, adding substantially to the fixed compliance cost of every article ultimately increases the cost borne somewhere in the value chain.

GJC SEEKS REVIEW, NOT DILUTION OF HALLMARKING

Rajesh Rokde, Chairman, GJC, said:

“GJC and the jewellery industry have consistently supported hallmarking because purity assurance and consumer confidence are fundamental to our trade. But support for hallmarking does not mean that a nearly 67% increase in the cost of mandatory compliance should pass without examination. Hallmarking volumes have expanded enormously. The industry therefore deserves to understand why the per-article charge needs to rise from Rs 45 to Rs 75 at this stage.”

He added: “BIS’s own enforcement actions across Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Assam and other locations demonstrate that fake hallmarking, unauthorised operations and non-compliance remain serious concerns. Before increasing the burden on compliant jewellers, the priority should be to address these distortions and strengthen enforcement. Increasing the official fee does not by itself make the hallmarking ecosystem stronger.”

Avinash Gupta, Vice Chairman, GJC, said:

“Compliance must remain commercially sustainable. If the compliant route becomes progressively more expensive while informal and unauthorised channels continue to operate, the differential between the two widens. That is not desirable either for the Government, the industry or the consumer.”

He further stated: “There are also industry concerns regarding aggressive discounting and commercial inducements in the race for hallmarking volumes. If Rs 45 itself is not being uniformly realised across the market, the first question should be why that is happening and whether the present economic model requires correction. Simply prescribing Rs 75 without studying actual market practices may not address the underlying problem.”

GJC urges the Government and BIS to:

1. Keep the increase from Rs 45 to Rs 75 per article in abeyance and continue the existing Rs 45 charge until a comprehensive review is completed.
2. Undertake a transparent cost study of recognised Assaying and Hallmarking Centres, including capital cost, operating cost, volumes, capacity utilisation and reasonable return.
3. Examine the actual charges being realised by AHCs vis-à-vis the prescribed rate, including discounts, rebates, commercial inducements or other market practices.
4. Intensify enforcement against fake hallmarking, unauthorised AHCs, misuse of the BIS logo and jewellery sold without valid HUID.
5. Consult GJC, representatives of jewellers, manufacturers and AHCs before implementing any substantial revision in the cost of mandatory compliance.
6. Consider whether rising volumes and greater capacity utilisation can enable economies of scale to stabilise or reduce the per-article charge.
7. Examine a differentiated or more rational mechanism for lightweight and lower-value jewellery, where a uniform per-piece fee creates a disproportionately higher burden.

GJC reiterates that the domestic jewellery industry fully supports genuine hallmarking and stringent action against those who misuse the system.

The Council’s concern is straightforward: a regulatory system achieves maximum compliance when genuine compliance is affordable, enforcement is credible and malpractice is economically unattractive.

At this stage, increasing the gold hallmarking fee by nearly 67%, without first addressing the distortions already visible in the ecosystem, is in GJC’s view unwarranted and deserves immediate reconsideration.