A footwear factory may have production lines ready, packaging printed and buyer orders confirmed, yet its BIS application can still stall because the product was mapped to the wrong Indian Standard or the tested sample did not represent the materials included in the requested licence scope.
BIS certification for footwear is product-specific. Footwear listed in an applicable Quality Control Order must conform to the notified Indian Standard and bear the Standard Mark under a BIS licence before it is manufactured or sold for the regulated Indian market, unless a valid exemption applies. The manufacturer should first confirm the product description, intended use, construction and materials, and only then plan testing, factory assessment and the licence application.
No. BIS certification should not be determined from the word “footwear” alone.
Mandatory certification applies when a product falls within the description and Indian Standard listed in an operative QCO. Products may appear similar commercially but fall under different standards because of their intended use, upper material, sole construction, protective characteristics or performance claims.
The principal compulsory-certification groups currently relevant to footwear are:
The first two groups are governed by separate 2024 QCOs that took effect on 1 August 2024. PPE footwear is governed by a separate 2020 Order that became effective on 1 January 2022 after amendment.
Legal requirement: A listed product must comply with the notified Indian Standard and bear the Standard Mark under the applicable BIS licence unless an exemption in the relevant Order applies.
Practical recommendation: Prepare a signed product-applicability note before testing. It should record the product name, intended user, safety or performance claim, material construction, likely Indian Standard, QCO position and reasons supporting the classification.
The following matrix is a working guide to the current QCO structure. It should be verified against the latest consolidated Order, standard revision and BIS product manual before filing.
| Product category | Applicable Indian Standard |
|---|---|
| Leather safety boots and shoes for miners | IS 1989 Part 1:1986 |
| Leather safety boots and shoes for heavy metal industries | IS 1989 Part 2:1986 |
| Canvas shoes with rubber sole | IS 3735:1996 |
| Canvas boots with rubber sole | IS 3736:1995 |
| Safety rubber canvas boots for miners | IS 3976:2018 |
| Leather safety footwear with direct-moulded rubber sole | IS 11226:1993 |
| Leather safety and protective footwear with direct-moulded polymeric sole | IS 14544:2022 |
| General-purpose sports footwear | IS 15844 Part 1:2023 |
| Performance sports footwear | IS 15844 Part 2:2023 |
| Professional sports footwear | IS 15844 Part 3:2024 |
| High-ankle tactical boots with PU-rubber sole | IS 17012:2018 |
| Anti-riot shoes | IS 17037:2018 |
| Shoes for services | IS 17043 Part 1:2024 |
| Shoes for general purpose | IS 17043 Part 2:2024 |
These products are listed under the 2024 leather and other materials QCO.
| Product category | Applicable Indian Standard |
|---|---|
| Industrial and protective rubber knee and ankle boots | IS 5557:2004 |
| All-rubber gum boots and ankle boots for occupational purposes | IS 5557 Part 2:2018 |
| Moulded rubber outsoles | IS 5676:1995 |
| Microcellular rubber sheets | IS 6664:1992 |
| Moulded PVC outsoles | IS 6719:1972 |
| Sandals and slippers | IS 6721:2023 |
| Hawai chappal | IS 10702:2023 |
| PVC industrial boots | IS 12254:2021 |
| Polyurethane outsoles | IS 13893:1994 |
| Unlined moulded rubber boots | IS 13995:1995 |
| Moulded plastic or polyurethane boots for general industrial use | IS 16645:2018 |
| Footwear for municipal scavenging work | IS 16994:2018 |
The Order also contains specific provisions for certain components imported for manufacturing export-only footwear, subject to the prescribed certification and customs conditions.
PPE footwear is separately regulated under:
IS 15298 Part 2 was revised in 2024, and BIS directed implementation of the revised edition by 22 January 2025.
The June 2026 amendments changed the date applicable to qualifying declared pre-commencement footwear stock from 31 July 2026 to 31 July 2027.
This relief concerns old stock meeting the conditions of the relevant proviso. It does not postpone the general commencement of the QCOs, which took effect on 1 August 2024. New regulated production should not be planned on the assumption that mandatory BIS certification begins only in 2027.
A business relying on the legacy-stock provision should retain evidence of:
The June 2026 amendments also provide a controlled exemption for manufacturers importing up to 4,500 pairs in a year for research and development and non-commercial use.
The products must not be commercially sold, must be marked or embossed “NOT FOR SALE,” must ultimately be disposed of as scrap, and year-wise records must be maintained for government review.
This exemption should not be treated as a pilot-sales, market-testing or commercial-launch route.
The Transition Facilitation (Quality Control) Order, 2026 creates a Scheme II route for products covered by listed QCOs, including footwear. However, the route is available only to a manufacturer supplying a person that has received specific permission from DPIIT following the prescribed risk-assessment and implementation process.
For an ordinary footwear manufacturer, the working assumption should remain Scheme I unless specific DPIIT permission has been verified for the proposed supply arrangement.
The 2024 leather and rubber/polymeric footwear QCO texts contain exemptions for micro and small manufacturing units as defined under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, as amended.
This exemption should be applied carefully:
Even where a legal exemption is available, voluntary conformity assessment may still be commercially useful for tenders, institutional buyers, safety expectations or quality assurance. That is a business recommendation, not a statement of mandatory applicability.
The manufacturing entity operating the footwear factory ordinarily applies for a Scheme I licence. The licence is connected with the manufacturing location, applicable Indian Standard, product scope and approved varieties.
A brand owner should determine which factory actually manufactures the product. A licence held by one manufacturing location should not be assumed to cover:
The contractual arrangement between the brand owner and factory should allocate responsibility for testing, marking, continuing quality control, complaints, surveillance samples and licence changes.
An Indian importer does not normally replace the foreign factory as the manufacturing applicant. The overseas manufacturer generally applies through the Foreign Manufacturers Certification Scheme and appoints an Authorized Indian Representative in India.
The importer should verify that the proposed product, standard, factory, brand and model or variety fall within the foreign manufacturer’s actual licence scope before shipment.
The two 2024 footwear QCOs provide an exemption for products intended for export. The factory should nevertheless maintain clear evidence separating export-only production, stock and dispatches from products intended for the Indian market.
Start with the technical product, not merely its marketing name.
The review should cover:
An HS code may support screening but should not be treated as the sole basis for BIS applicability.
Prepare a model and variety matrix showing:
This matrix helps determine which products can be represented by one test sample and which require separate samples or separate licence consideration.
The product manual may establish:
Product manuals and standard revisions can change. Use the current document available at the time of application rather than a checklist copied from a previous project.
Under the February 2026 Scheme I guidelines:
A footwear manufacturer should not assume eligibility for Option 2 without checking the current BIS list. Under Option 2, the latest report should generally not be older than 90 days, and where multiple reports are submitted, the oldest should generally not exceed 180 days.
BIS assesses whether the factory has the infrastructure and controls needed to manufacture products consistently in conformity with the standard.
Preparation normally includes:
The application is filed through the prescribed BIS system with Form V, supporting documents, a self-evaluation report and the applicable payment.
Names, addresses and legal details should remain consistent across:
During the assessment, the BIS officer may review:
The current guidelines indicate that a normal factory visit is generally planned for approximately one day for an Indian factory and two days for a foreign factory, although actual requirements can vary.
Samples may be drawn for testing through an accepted BIS laboratory pathway. The applicant should verify the laboratory’s current scope for the exact Indian Standard and part in BIS LIMS.
A laboratory’s general footwear capability or NABL accreditation should not be treated as confirmation that every test under the proposed BIS standard is within its accepted scope.
Any discrepancy in documents, factory facilities, test results or product scope must be answered with evidence.
Typical responses may include:
After BIS is satisfied with the application, factory assessment, testing and other requirements, the licence is issued with an approved scope.
The manufacturer may then use the Standard Mark only:
There is no universal footwear test list. The test plan depends on the Indian Standard, construction, material, intended use and claims.
The current product manual for IS 15298 Part 2:2024 provides for four pairs per variety, with additional samples potentially required where innocuousness testing is performed through a different laboratory.
Depending on the footwear classification and claims, testing can include:
Not every optional or claim-related test applies to every safety shoe. The intended licence scope must be aligned with the actual construction and declared protective properties.
For IS 10702:2023, the product manual provides for four pairs and differentiates children’s and adult products, with adult product types further classified.
Testing can include:
Sports-footwear testing depends heavily on the part of IS 15844 and the materials used in the upper, lining, sock, insole, midsole and outsole.
Tests and controls can include:
For professional sports footwear under IS 15844 Part 3:2024, the product manual provides for four pairs per variety, generally allocating three pairs to physical tests and one pair to chemical tests. Components may require separate submission where necessary.
Two shoes with the same shape and brand may not be technically identical for BIS purposes.
A change from:
may affect product grouping, sample selection, test applicability or licence scope.
Testing only the easiest or least expensive combination can create a mismatch between the report and the products intended for sale.
Before selecting a sample, list each intended product against:
| Variable | Details to record |
|---|---|
| Upper | Material, thickness and construction |
| Lining | Material and location |
| Sock or footbed | Material and removable/fixed status |
| Insole | Material and construction |
| Midsole | Material, density and design |
| Outsole | Material, tread and moulding process |
| Bonding | Adhesive, moulding or vulcanization method |
| Protective elements | Toe cap, penetration insert, ankle or metatarsal protection |
| Intended claim | General, sports, safety, protective or occupational |
| Size range | Minimum and maximum sizes |
The representative sample should be selected only after this matrix is compared with the current product manual.
| Document or activity | Manufacturer | Laboratory | AIR for foreign factory | Consultant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product description and intended use | Primary | Review input | Coordinate | Mapping support |
| Model and material matrix | Primary | Uses for sample identification | Coordinate | Review |
| Factory legal documents | Primary | No | Coordinate | Gap review |
| Manufacturing process and machinery | Primary | No | Coordinate | Documentation support |
| Quality-control plan | Primary | No | Coordinate | Review |
| Test-equipment and calibration records | Primary | No | Coordinate | Readiness review |
| Raw-material conformity evidence | Primary | May test | Coordinate | Gap review |
| Test request and laboratory report | Support | Primary | Coordinate | Tracking support |
| AIR nomination and undertaking | Foreign manufacturer | No | Primary | Documentation support |
| Application declarations | Must authorize and sign | No | As prescribed | Cannot replace applicant |
| Factory assessment response | Primary | Technical support | Coordinate | Corrective-action matrix |
| Certification decision | No | No | No | No – BIS decides |
Green Permits or any other consultant may assist with mapping, documentation, coordination and response preparation, but certification decisions remain with BIS.
The 2026 Scheme I guidelines provide expected processing periods where the application and all supporting evidence are satisfactory at the first instance:
| Route | Official expected processing period |
|---|---|
| Option 1 | Up to approximately 90 days |
| Eligible Option 2 application | Up to approximately 30 days |
| Qualifying all-India-first product cases | Approximately 45 days, unless testing duration prevents it |
These are process expectations, not guaranteed approval timelines.
The actual project duration may increase because of:
A commercial launch date should therefore be planned backwards from the licence requirement, with contingency for testing and corrective action.
A reliable estimate should separate five cost groups.
These can include:
The latest fee schedule should be checked immediately before payment because marking-fee rates and procedural fees can be revised.
Testing costs depend on:
These may include:
An FMCS project may additionally involve:
Consultancy fees should remain separate from government, laboratory and travel costs. The proposal should identify assumptions, exclusions and the number of products or varieties included.
No single “BIS footwear certificate cost” is reliable without first identifying the standard, factory location, test scope and intended licence varieties.
A general shoe, performance sports shoe and protective shoe should not be grouped merely because their appearance is similar.
The material, construction, brand, model or size shown in the test report may not match the proposed licence scope.
Only one variety is tested even though the application seeks multiple upper, midsole or outsole combinations.
The factory lacks required test equipment, working instructions, calibration or trained personnel under the applicable Scheme of Inspection and Testing.
Critical materials are supported only by supplier declarations where the BIS process requires stronger conformity evidence.
The company name or address differs between GST, incorporation documents, factory records, application and reports.
Moulding, stitching, component production or testing is outsourced without being properly declared or controlled.
The 2026 guidelines identify non-availability of required samples, repeated sample failure, inadequate facilities, unclosed discrepancies and lack of cooperation among the situations that can lead to rejection after due process.
This is an illustrative example and is not presented as a Green Permits client case.
A sports-footwear manufacturer wants one licence covering:
The factory initially sends one knitted-upper, EVA-midsole and rubber-outsole sample for testing.
The likely difficulty is not the product’s appearance. The requested scope includes multiple material combinations and more than one performance category. One sample may not represent every intended variety.
A better approach would be to:
This reduces the risk of receiving a report that is technically correct but too narrow for the intended commercial range.
This is a practical planning tool, not a statutory BIS assessment.
Give one point for every “Yes” answer.
8-10 points: Reasonably ready for a formal pre-application review.
5-7 points: Material gaps remain and should be closed before filing.
0-4 points: Testing or filing now may create avoidable rework and cost.
Obtaining the licence is not the end of footwear compliance.
The licensee must continue to:
BIS may conduct factory or market surveillance and draw samples to verify continuing conformity.
Renewal may be requested for a period of one to five years under the current framework, subject to the licence position, compliance performance, fee requirements and applicable BIS procedure.
BIS certification for footwear should begin with product classification, not application filing. A manufacturer must identify the applicable QCO and Indian Standard, define the intended licence scope, plan representative samples, prepare the factory quality system and verify the accepted testing route.
The most expensive mistakes usually occur before filing: choosing the wrong standard, testing an unrepresentative product, requesting an unsupported scope or assuming that a narrow exemption applies to the entire footwear range.
Green Permits can support footwear manufacturers with product-to-standard mapping, document-gap review, testing coordination, application preparation, factory inspection readiness and post-licence compliance. Final testing, certification and enforcement decisions remain with BIS and the competent authorities.
📞 +91 78350 06182
📧 wecare@greenpermits.in
👉 Book a Consultation with Green Permits
No. It is compulsory for footwear products falling within the scope of an operative QCO and its listed Indian Standard. Product name alone is not sufficient to establish applicability.
For imported regulated footwear, the overseas manufacturing factory generally applies through FMCS and appoints an Authorized Indian Representative. The importer should confirm that the factory, product, standard and proposed scope are correctly licensed.
The two 2024 QCOs for leather and rubber/polymeric footwear contain exemptions for micro and small manufacturing units. The exemption should be verified against current Udyam status and the latest consolidated Order. It should not automatically be applied to PPE footwear under its separate QCO.
No. The date concerns qualifying declared stock manufactured or imported before commencement under the relevant proviso. The two 2024 QCOs generally took effect on 1 August 2024.
