NBFC Factor Inward Remittance Message: Data Fields, Bank Coordination and Exception-Control Checklist
By Ravi Sisodia · Reviewed by CA Divyanshu Sengar · Updated 5 October 2026
Current-source controlled update for finance, legal, compliance and operating teams.
2-minute summary
- The control objective is clean remittance attribution without creating a duplicate IRM or an eBRC mismatch.
- Create a mandatory field map covering exporter IEC, bank account, remittance currency/value, purpose text, invoice reference and internal factoring reference.
- The practical control is to separate the dated policy/source statement from the company-specific legal, contractual and operational conclusion.
Current position
Control and action map
| # | Control / action |
|---|---|
| 1 | Create a mandatory field map covering exporter IEC, bank account, remittance currency/value, purpose text, invoice reference and internal factoring reference. |
| 2 | Agree with the AD-I bank which events generate an IRM and which factor-originated receipts should be suppressed under the draft workflow. |
| 3 | Run pre-send validation for currency, account, exporter and reference consistency before the SWIFT or equivalent instruction is released. |
| 4 | Log bank acknowledgements and rejection reasons so recurring mapping defects can be corrected at source. |
Evidence pack
- factoring agreement and assigned receivable schedule
- bank/SWIFT or remittance-message record
- export invoice / shipping bill / SOFTEX evidence
- DGFT eBRC / IRM reconciliation
- exception, rejection and correction log
Worked example
A factor receives one foreign remittance covering three exporter invoices. Operations keeps the bank message, internal allocation and eBRC support schedule linked so the exporter can reconcile the correct invoice population.
Common mistakes
- Treating a dated policy, report, draft or portal metric as if it were the final company-specific legal conclusion.
- Acting before the key identifier, document, approval or counterparty record has been reconciled to the same transaction population.
- Failing to preserve the version and date of the evidence used, making later correction or audit review difficult.
Is the 12 August 2026 NBFC-factor SOP final?
No. The official notice register still describes Trade Notice 20/2026-27 as inviting comments on a draft SOP at this cut-off.
Can a factor wait for the final SOP before doing anything?
It can prepare data maps, bank coordination and UAT controls now, while keeping live production aligned to current DGFT eBRC and FEMA rules.
Official sources
- DGFT / Department of Commerce via APEDA - Trade Notice 20/2026-27 - Draft SOP for IRMs pertaining to NBFC Factors (Trade Notice 20/2026-27; 12 Aug 2026)
- Directorate General of Foreign Trade - Pilot Launch of upgraded eBRC system for self-certification (Trade Notice 33/2023-24; 10 Nov 2023)
- Directorate General of Foreign Trade - Self-Certified eBRC Generation Guidelines (Version 1.0; 10 Nov 2023)
- Reserve Bank of India - FEMA notifications - Export and Import of Goods and Services Regulations, 2026 (FEMA notification index; 2026)
Disclaimer
Educational and professional reference only; confirm the current law, rates and the facts of your case before relying on this page.