For Punjab’s basmati exporters, a shipment reaching an overseas port should mark the final stretch of a long export chain. However, 50-60 containers of basmati rice now face the prospect of being sent back from Australia after authorities there stopped accepting fumigation certificates issued by service providers whose approvals they subsequently suspended.Fumigation—treating rice with chemicals to prevent infestations—was aimed at ensuring that rice entering Australia complied with its biosecurity conditions, particularly those designed to prevent the entry of pests such as the ‘Khapra beetle’.Exporters estimate losses running into crores of rupees, with Punjab and Haryana—among India’s major basmati-exporting states—likely to bear a substantial share of the impact. A well-known Amritsar exporter said 40-50 affected containers are linked to exporters from the city.At the heart of the dispute is a question exporters are raising: if fumigation was carried out by service providers approved under India’s plant quarantine system, in the presence of phytosanitary officials and with certificates issued under the prevailing procedure, why should exporters bear the cost after those providers were suspended?What triggered the Australian action?Australia’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) stepped up scrutiny of fumigation service providers and conducted a biosecurity audit in India in June, including facilities in Punjab and Haryana.Exporters said Australian officials physically inspected service providers and their records. The audit covered nearly seven providers, mostly from Punjab and Haryana, and checked whether the fumigation process certified in India complied with Australian biosecurity requirements.Australia subsequently suspended approval for several Indian fumigation service providers, including providers from Punjab and Haryana.Story continues below this adThe scrutiny was not limited to checking certificates accompanying consignments. Australian officials examined the records and procedures supporting those certificates.Also Read | How Trump’s new Iran tariff has taken the aroma off India’s basmati exportsAn exporter, requesting anonymity, said officials found that a service provider had not maintained the required records relating to fumigation, raising questions over the process.“An exporter was provided the fumigation certificate after the service provider visited the factory and carried out the fumigation process. But the service provider did not maintain the required records, which led Australian officials to raise questions,” the exporter said.The exporter said the process involved both the service provider and the National Plant Protection Organisation (NPPO) system, under which phytosanitary officials oversee such procedures.Story continues below this adThe fumigation was carried out by treatment providers approved under India’s plant-quarantine system, while phytosanitary certification is handled by authorised officers under the NPPO.India’s Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), a statutory body under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, has recommended strict action against the service providers and blacklisting them, officials said. They added that while the cost of some stuck consignments is in crores of rupees, it is unclear how many consignments will be returned.‘Government should compensate exporters’Exporters say they did not carry out the fumigation themselves. They used providers approved under the Indian system and received certificates before shipping the consignments.They said more than 250 containers of basmati rice were in transit to Australia and that 40-45 of them had been fumigated by a Ludhiana-based provider before its approval was suspended.Story continues below this adExporters now say Australia has rejected consignments carrying certificates issued by that provider and another suspended provider.An Amritsar exporter said the exporters were caught between two systems: they had followed the procedure applicable in India when the consignments were shipped, but the certificates were subsequently not accepted in Australia.“The government should compensate exporters for the losses because the fumigation service provider was responsible for the process, not the exporter,” he said.Retail-packed rice cannot be easily refumigatedAPEDA officials said some consignments underwent treatment at Australian borders, but refumigation became difficult when rice was packed in 1 kg, 5 kg, 15 kg and 20 kg retail packets.Story continues below this adSuch packets may have to be punctured at several places for treatment, damaging the packaging, and making the product difficult to sell.Officials said bulk consignments could be refumigated inside containers and accepted in Australia, but retail-packed consignments could not be treated in the same practical manner. These are therefore facing the possibility of being sent back to India.Delays add to exporters’ financial burdenExporters said containers already at Australian ports were attracting demurrage (fee charged when goods are kept at a port longer than the allowed free time) of about 500 Australian dollars a day.“If consignments are sent back, exporters first have to bear the huge logistics cost. Then there is the loss because the product was not accepted in Australia and orders were cancelled. They may also have to spend more on refumigation before exporting the rice again,” an exporter said.Story continues below this ad“The Australian action is not a rejection of Indian basmati on quality grounds. The immediate dispute concerns the biosecurity treatment and certification process required for entry into Australia,” said an APEDA source, adding that Australia has one of the world’s stringent biosecurity systems and has moved in recent years from document-based approval towards continuous compliance monitoring and audits of overseas treatment providers.The Australia dispute comes when Punjab’s basmati exporters are already facing higher freight costs because of the disruption around the Strait of Hormuz.APEDA officials said the episode underlines the need for every link in the export chain—from fumigation and phytosanitary certification to documentation and packing—to remain compliant with the importing country’s requirements.Dr J P Singh, the government’s plant protection advisor under the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage, has not responded to The Indian Express’s query on whether phytosanitary officials were present during the fumigation process.