Uzbekistan Registration Certificate Duplicate: Issuance Rules and Fees

1. Key takeaways

Where a registration certificate is lost or damaged, a duplicate may be issued at the request of the applicant, and the issuance fee for the duplicate is charged at half the acceptance fee (a rule established by Resolution No. 213). But a duplicate only solves the problem of a missing certificate carrier: the registered status, the validity period and the state register entry recorded on the certificate are unaffected. When handling a duplicate application, companies should verify in parallel that the state register entry matches reality, because the register — not the paper document — is what circulation stakeholders actually check. Importers, customs officers and hospital procurement teams confirm the registration status of a product against the public register maintained by the Center, and a physically intact certificate in the office of the representative carries no evidential weight compared with that entry. The duplicate procedure is therefore best understood as document logistics rather than a regulatory event: it involves a request from the applicant, payment at the half-rate basis, and issuance by the Center, without any re-examination of the underlying registration. The practical risks around duplicates concentrate elsewhere — in who holds the original, how quickly a loss is detected and reported, and whether the register entry can be produced as proof of registration while the duplicate is being processed. Contracting for these points explicitly prevents the loss of a paper certificate from escalating into a shipment that cannot clear customs. A disciplined approach treats the register archive, the certificate custody terms and the duplicate procedure as one package designed at certification time, so that the response to a loss is a routine execution of pre-agreed steps rather than a negotiation under time pressure.

2. Legal basis

3. Expert insights

Insight 1: the duplicate and the renewal share the half-rate rule, but they are fundamentally different procedures. A duplicate solves a carrier problem (loss or damage), while a renewal solves a validity problem (the 5-year term). Both are charged at half rate, but the renewal requires renewed review, while the duplicate only requires verification of the original records. Treating a duplicate as a simplified renewal is a conceptual confusion that can lead companies to expect review outcomes from a purely administrative procedure.

Insight 2: the evidential force of the register entry outweighs the paper certificate. Resolution No. 213 requires the Center to maintain a register of issued certificates and publish it on its website, open to legal entities and natural persons; Article 14 likewise requires the register information to be published on the website of the Ministry of Health. When importers, hospitals and regulators verify a product, they compare against the register entry, not against the paper certificate presented by the company. The register is the operative record of registration status.

Insight 3: custody of the certificate should rest with the representative, not the manufacturer. Since the representative receives correspondence and decisions from the Center on behalf of the applicant, custody of the original certificate naturally falls to it as well. The agreement should state how many copies are held, how they are stored, and the deadlines for reporting a loss and applying for a duplicate. Writing down in advance who re-applies and within what period is more useful than assigning blame after the fact.

Insight 4: market activities continue while the duplicate is processed, provided registration status can be proven. Issuance of a duplicate takes time, but the registration status exists continuously in the register. If the company needs to prove status during this period, it can cite the register entry without waiting for the paper duplicate. This is why archiving register entries, with the date of retrieval, should be a routine action rather than a reaction to an emergency.

4. Practical recommendations

1. State in the representative agreement the number of certificate copies held, the storage method and the deadline for reporting a loss.
2. Archive the register entry immediately after certification (including the retrieval date) as proof of registration status.
3. Run the duplicate application and the register check in parallel, confirming the validity period, manufacturer and representative information.
4. Estimate the duplicate fee on the half-rate basis, subject to the current fee schedule.
5. Create an electronic archive of the original certificate to reduce reliance on the physical document.

5. Verification checklist

• □ Representative agreement states the number of certificate copies held, the storage method and the loss reporting deadline
• □ Register entry archived, including the retrieval date
• □ Duplicate application accompanied by a register check of validity period, manufacturer and representative information
• □ Duplicate fee estimated on the half-rate basis
• □ Electronic archive of the original certificate completed
• □ Evidential primacy of the register entry over the paper certificate confirmed internally

GRZAN supports manufacturers, importers and authorized representatives with medical device registration, certificate custody arrangements and market access in Uzbekistan. For assistance with your product portfolio, contact info@grzanglobal.com.

Regulatory information verified as of October 29, 2026.