The All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council (GJC) has urged the Government and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to put on hold the increase in gold hallmarking charges from ₹45 to ₹75 per article, saying the 67 per cent hike will raise compliance costs for jewellers without addressing continuing concerns over fake hallmarking and unauthorised operators.
The increase in charges was notified on September 14.
GJC said it supports mandatory hallmarking as an important mechanism for purity assurance, transparency and consumer protection, but argued that the steep increase warrants a transparent assessment of the cost structure and consultation with industry stakeholders.
The government data cited by the Council shows over 60 crore gold articles had been hallmarked with a Hallmark Unique Identification (HUID) number between July 1, 2021, and March 5, 2026. Mandatory hallmarking had also expanded to 380 districts by March 2026.
GJC said the sharp increase in volumes and geographical coverage should potentially result in economies of scale and greater capacity utilisation at hallmarking centres. It therefore questioned the need for a 67 per cent increase in the per-article fee.
The Council also flagged the issue of aggressive discounting, commercial inducements and unhealthy competition among some service providers seeking to secure hallmarking volumes. It said the prescribed ₹45 charge may not be uniformly realised in the market and that merely raising the notified fee may not resolve underlying viability and governance issues.
Enforcement against fake and unauthorised hallmarking should instead be given greater priority, GJC said.
It pointed to recent BIS actions involving allegedly fake-hallmarked jewellery, unauthorised hallmarking centres and misuse of hallmark symbols in locations including Chennai, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Assam and Kanyakumari.
Rajesh Rokde, Chairman, GJC said support for hallmarking does not mean that a nearly 67 per cent increase in the cost of mandatory compliance should pass without examination and the industry needs to understand why the fee needs to rise when hallmarking volumes have expanded substantially.
Avinash Gupta, Vice-Chairman, GJC said if the compliant route becomes progressively more expensive while informal and unauthorised channels continue to operate, the differential between the two widens.
The council said the impact of the increase would be particularly pronounced on lightweight jewellery because the fee is levied per article irrespective of its weight. A ₹75 charge would therefore represent a significantly higher proportion of the value of a lightweight piece than a heavier article.
GJC has sought a comprehensive cost study covering AHC capital and operating costs, capacity utilisation and reasonable returns. It has also called for examination of actual charges, discounts and incentives offered by AHCs, stronger enforcement against fake hallmarking and consultation with jewellers, manufacturers and AHCs.
The council has further proposed examining a differentiated fee mechanism for lightweight and lower-value jewellery and assessing whether higher hallmarking volumes can help stabilise or reduce per-article costs.