Banks are required to classify non-performing assets further into the following three categories based on the period for which the asset has remained non-performing and the realisability of the dues:

1. Sub-standard Assets

2. Doubtful Assets

3. Loss Assets

A sub-standard asset was one, which was classified as NPA for a period not exceeding two years. With effect from 31 March 2001, a sub-standard asset is one, which has remained NPA for a period less than or equal to 18 months. In such cases, the current net worth of the borrower/ guarantor or the current market value of the security charged is not enough to ensure recovery of the dues to the banks in full. In other words, such an asset will have well defined credit weaknesses that jeopardise the liquidation of the debt and are characterised by the distinct possibility that the banks will sustain some loss, if deficiencies are not corrected.

A doubtful asset was one, which remained NPA for a period exceeding two years. With effect from 31 March 2001, an asset is to be classified as doubtful, if it has remained NPA for a period exceeding 18 months. A loan classified as doubtful has all the weaknesses inherent in assets that were classified as sub-standard, with the added characteristic that the weaknesses make collection or liquidation in full, - on the basis of currently known facts, conditions and values - highly questionable and improbable.

With effect from March 31, 2005, an asset would be classified as doubtful if it remained in the sub-standard category for 12 months.

A loss asset is one where loss has been identified by the bank or internal or external auditors or the RBI inspection but the amount has not been written off wholly. In other words, such an asset is considered uncollectible and of such little value that its continuance as a bankable asset is not warranted although there may be some salvage or recovery value.

Broadly speaking, classification of assets into above categories should be done taking into account the degree of well-defined credit weaknesses and the extent of dependence on collateral security for realisation of dues.

Banks should establish appropriate internal systems to eliminate the tendency to delay or postpone the identification of NPAs, especially in respect of high value accounts. The banks may fix a minimum cut off point to decide what would constitute a high value account depending upon their respective business levels. The cut off point should be valid for the entire accounting year. Responsibility and validation levels for ensuring proper asset classification may be fixed by the banks. The system should ensure that doubts in asset classification due to any reason are settled through specified internal channels within one month from the date on which the account would have been classified as NPA as per extant guidelines.

(i) The classification of an asset as NPA should be based on the record of recovery. Bank should not classify an advance account as NPA merely due to the existence of some deficiencies which are temporary in nature such as non-availability of adequate drawing power based on the latest available stock statement, balance outstanding exceeding the limit temporarily, non-submission of stock statements and non-renewal of the limits on the due date, etc. In the matter of classification of accounts with such deficiencies banks may follow the following guidelines:

1. Banks should ensure that drawings in the working capital accounts are covered by the adequacy of current assets, since current assets are first appropriated in times of distress. Drawing power is required to be arrived at based on the stock statement which is current. However, considering the difficulties of large borrowers, stock statements relied upon by the banks for determining drawing power should not be older than three months. The outstanding in the account based on drawing power calculated from stock statements older than three months, would be deemed as irregular. A working capital borrowal account will become NPA if such irregular drawings are permitted in the account for a continuous period of 180 days even though the unit may be working or the borrower's financial position is satisfactory.

2. Regular and ad hoc credit limits need to be reviewed/ regularised not later than three months from the due date/date of ad hoc sanction. In case of constraints such as non-availability of financial statements and other data from the borrowers, the branch should furnish evidence to show that renewal/ review of credit limits is already on and would be completed soon. In any case, delay beyond six months is not considered desirable as a general discipline. Hence, an account where the regular/ ad hoc credit limits have not been reviewed/ renewed within 180 days from the due date/ date of ad hoc sanction will be treated as NPA.

The asset classification of borrowal accounts where a solitary or a few credits are recorded before the balance sheet date should be handled with care and without scope for subjectivity. Where the account indicates inherent weakness on the basis of the data available, the account should be deemed as a NPA. In other genuine cases, the banks must furnish satisfactory evidence to the Statutory Auditors/Inspecting Officers about the manner of regularisation of the account to eliminate doubts on their performing status.

1. It is difficult to envisage a situation when only one facility to a borrower becomes a problem credit and not others. Therefore, all the facilities granted by a bank to a borrower will have to be treated as NPA and not the particular facility or part thereof which has become irregular.

2. If the debits arising out of devolvement of letters of credit or invoked guarantees are parked in a separate account, the balance outstanding in that account also should be treated as a part of the borrower's principal operating account for the purpose of application of prudential norms on income recognition, asset classification and provisioning.

Asset classification of accounts under consortium should be based on the record of recovery of the individual member banks and other aspects having a bearing on the recoverability of the advances. Where the remittances by the borrower under consortium lending arrangements are pooled with one bank and/or where the bank receiving remittances is not parting with the share of other member banks, the account will be treated as not serviced in the books of the other member banks and therefore, be treated as NPA. The banks participating in the consortium should, therefore, arrange to get their share of recovery transferred from the lead bank or get an express consent from the lead bank for the transfer of their share of recovery, to ensure proper asset classification in their respective books.

1. A NPA need not go through the various stages of classification in cases of serious credit impairment and such assets should be straightaway classified as doubtful or loss asset as appropriate. Erosion in the value of security can be reckoned as significant when the realisable value of the security is less than 50 per cent of the value assessed by the bank or accepted by RBI at the time of last inspection, as the case may be. Such NPAs may be straightaway classified under doubtful category and provisioning should be made as applicable to doubtful assets.

2. If the realisable value of the security, as assessed by the bank/ approved valuers/ RBI is less than 10 per cent of the outstanding in the borrowal accounts, the existence of security should be ignored and the asset should be straightaway classified as loss asset. It may be either written off or fully provided for by the bank.

In respect of agricultural advances as well as advances for other purposes granted by banks to ceded PACS/ FSS under the on-lending system, only that particular credit facility granted to PACS/ FSS which is in default for a period of two harvest seasons (not exceeding two half years)/two quarters, as the case may be, after it has become due will be classified as NPA and not all the credit facilities sanctioned to a PACS/ FSS. The other direct loans & advances, if any, granted by the bank to the member borrower of a PACS/ FSS outside the on-lending arrangement will become NPA even if one of the credit facilities granted to the same borrower becomes NPA.

Advances against term deposits, NSCs eligible for surrender, IVPs, KVPs and life policies need not be treated as NPAs. Advances against gold ornaments, government securities and all other securities are not covered by this exemption.

1. In the case of bank finance given for industrial projects or for agricultural plantations etc. where moratorium is available for payment of interest, payment of interest becomes 'due' only after the moratorium or gestation period is over. Therefore, such amounts of interest do not become overdue and hence NPA, with reference to the date of debit of interest. They become overdue after due date for payment of interest, if uncollected.

2. In the case of housing loan or similar advances granted to staff members where interest is payable after recovery of principal, interest need not be considered as overdue from the first quarter onwards. Such loans/advances should be classified as NPA only when there is a default in repayment of instalment of principal or payment of interest on the respective due dates.

1. In respect of advances granted for agricultural purpose where interest and/or instalment of principal remains unpaid after it has become past due for two harvest seasons but for a period not exceeding two half-years, such an advance should be treated as NPA. The above norms should be made applicable to all direct agricultural advances as listed at items 1.1, 1.1.2 (i) to (vii), 1.1.2 (viii)(a)(1) and 1.1.2 (viii)(b)(1) of Master Circular on lending to priority sector No. RPCD. PLAN. BC. 12/04.09.01/ 2001- 2002 dated 1 August 2001. An extract of the list of these items is furnished in the Annexure. In respect of agricultural loans, other than those specified above, identification of NPAs would be done on the same basis as non agricultural advances which, at present, is the 180 days delinquency norm.

2. Where natural calamities impair the repaying capacity of agricultural borrowers, banks may decide on their own as a relief measure - conversion of the short-term production loan into a term loan or re-schedulement of the repayment period; and the sanctioning of fresh short-term loan, subject to various guidelines contained in RBI circulars RPCD.No.PLFS.BC.128/05.04.02/97-98 dated 20.06.98 and RPCD.No.PLFS.BC.9/05.01.04/98-99 dated 21.07.98.

3. In such cases of conversion or re-schedulement, the term loan as well as fresh short-term loan may be treated as current dues and need not be classified as NPA. The asset classification of these loans would thereafter be governed by the revised terms & conditions and would be treated as NPA if interest and/or instalment of principal remains unpaid, for two harvest seasons but for a period not exceeding two half years.

The credit facilities backed by guarantee of the Central Government though overdue may be treated as NPA only when the Government repudiates its guarantee when invoked. This exemption from classification of Government guaranteed advances as NPA is not for the purpose of recognition of income. With effect from 1st April 2000, advances sanctioned against State Government guarantees should be classified as NPA in the normal course, if the guarantee is invoked and remains in default for more than two quarters. With effect from March 31, 2001 the period of default is revised as more than 180 days.