You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

September 1, 2020

A Practical Approach to Navigating Anti-Dumping Cases in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

As Vietnam continues to integrate into the world economy via bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, tariff barriers in the country have gradually been removed. This has made Vietnam an even more attractive target for foreign manufacturers and exporters, but it has also indirectly introduced a new challenge: local authorities are increasingly applying non-tariff barriers, such as anti-dumping duties, in an attempt to protect domestic industry.

From Vietnam’s WTO accession in January 2007 until July 2020, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT), the principal authority for anti-dumping practices in Vietnam, initiated 11 anti-dumping cases in total. Though this number is not large, eight of these cases were initiated after January 1, 2018, the effective date of the Law on Foreign Trade Management, which domesticated the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994) into Vietnamese law. Clearly, there has been an upward trend since this law took effect, and the risk that products of foreign manufacturers/exporters will be subject to anti-dumping investigations is likely to grow.

If your company becomes the subject of an anti-dumping investigation in Vietnam, the following notes, gleaned from our experience assisting clients in recent anti-dumping cases, can help you effectively and efficiently deal with the process.

A Marathon, Not a Sprint: Have a Long-Term Budget and Defense Strategy

An anti-dumping investigation by the MOIT may take from 12 to 18 months. Your company, as an interested party whose products are under consideration, may need to do the following:

  • Answer the investigation questionnaire provided by the Trade Remedies Authority of Vietnam (TRAV);
  • Supplement information as requested by TRAV;
  • Attend public or private hearings held by TRAV;
  • Review and respond to the draft of the final investigation conclusion; and
  • Prepare and submit information, data, and documents as requested by TRAV.

The workload for each activity may be very heavy because there is a huge volume of information and materials to assess. Thus, before taking any action, foreign manufacturers and exporters should carefully calculate all relevant figures to decide whether it makes economic sense to defend themselves, or whether they should simply pay the anti-dumping duties. It is worth noting that anti-dumping duties may be applied for a maximum period of five years, which can be renewed, subject to the review of the MOIT at the end of each period.

If your company ultimately decides to defend itself, an estimate of resources and a well-planned strategy can prevent any unexpected financial and technical issues that may occur during the process of the investigation.

Playing Defense: Every Chance to Protect your Interests Counts

When answering the anti-dumping investigation questionnaire, many foreign companies think that simply answering all the questions in accordance with the MOIT’s guidelines will be sufficient to defend their interests. In reality, however, even if your company answers the questionnaire in full, it may still receive an unfavorable result in the preliminary or final investigation decision—the information requested in the questionnaire is not always enough.
Thus, in addition to passively answering the questions of the investigating authority, your company should simultaneously make a proactive attempt to prove that its products should be eliminated from the investigation scope, or should not be subject to any anti-dumping measures. Opinions can be proactively provided to the MOIT at any time during the investigation period, to ensure that your voice is heard.

You Are Not Alone: Cooperation with Other Parties Can Benefit All

In an anti-dumping case, more often than not, there are many interested parties. Based on article 74.1 of the Law on Foreign Trade Management, the following parties could find themselves on the same side as a foreign manufacturer or exporter whose products are under investigation:

  • Other foreign manufacturers or exporters with similar products;
  • Vietnamese importers who import the investigated products into Vietnam;
  • Foreign associations whose members are primarily foreign manufacturers or exporters whose products are subject to the investigation; and
  • The government and authorities of the manufacturer’s or exporter’s country.

By gathering information and data from these parties, your company can acquire better insight into the market of the products under investigation in Vietnam. This can help make your response to the MOIT more practical and persuasive. Therefore, it is highly recommended that you connect with any other interested parties on the same side to best protect your interests—as well as theirs—before the Vietnamese authority.

An International Battle on a National Battlefield: Find a Local Scout

Although anti-dumping cases are carried out in compliance with an international agreement (the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement), the investigation authority is local. Moreover, as the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement has been domesticated into the Vietnamese legal system, there are now regulations that are specific to anti-dumping practices in Vietnam.

Knowing and understanding the regulations under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, while certainly beneficial, is not sufficient. You also need to be well versed in the specific regulations on anti-dumping under Vietnamese law, as well as the still-evolving practices of the MOIT. This type of insight can best be obtained from trusted local counsel with firsthand experience in anti-dumping cases. These experts can identify potential problems before they occur, and will save costs in the long run.

Anti-dumping investigations are never easy, but with preparation, a proactive defense, teamwork, and allies on the ground, you can greatly improve your chances for a favorable outcome.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 21, 2026
On July 6, 2026, Myanmar’s Ministry of Finance and Revenue introduced revised procedures governing the importation and exportation of goods and vehicles, replacing the framework that had been in place since 2017. The revised procedures were introduced in Notification No. 115/2026, which establishes updated compliance requirements and penalties for importers and exporters, covering licensing, declarations, product specifications, prior arrival of goods, and imports or exports made without the required licenses or permits. Scope Unlike its predecessor (Notification No. 6/2017), which focused primarily on import-related noncompliance, the new notification regulates both import and export activities and introduces a separate penalty schedule for export violations. Exporters are now required to ensure that their exports comply with the approvals stated in export licenses and permits, match the information declared in export declarations, and are supported by the required licenses, permits, and accompanying documents. Import Compliance and Penalties The new notification imposes several compliance requirements on importers. Importers must ensure that the country of origin, branding, labeling, and other product information are consistent with the relevant import license or permit, import declaration, and the imported goods. For vehicles and machinery, the model year must match the year approved by the Ministry of Commerce. Importers must also ensure that goods are not imported before the issuance or after the expiry of the import license or permit, and that the imported quantity does not exceed the approved amount. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in regulatory action. As for the notification’s revised penalties for noncompliance with import licensing requirements, imports made without the required import license, permit, or import declaration may be subject to fines ranging from one to three times the assessable value (AV) of the goods, depending on the category of goods involved. Certain vehicles and machinery, as well as specific
Read More
May 22, 2026
Thailand recently concluded the latest round of high-level trade discussions with its US trade counterparts. In addition to addressing concerns over claimed human rights abuses, forced labor, and the current trade imbalance with the US, one critical area of focus was US allegations of transshipment in Thailand’s import-export sector. Transshipment is the practice of routing goods through a third country to circumvent duties or tariffs on goods exported to the receiving country. Specifically, the US alleges that many Thai exporters declare a Thai origin for goods to qualify for preferential duties or exemptions without meeting the legal standards for establishing Thai product origin—an act that it claims masks the goods’ true origin. This is a particular matter of concern for US authorities, since transshipment is perceived to be a means by which Thai origin is claimed for many Chinese goods exported abroad. This perception affects a wide range of otherwise legitimate Thai-origin goods. The Thai trade delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Suphajee Suthumpun, met with counterparts from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on May 3–6. A subsequent team of Thai trade representatives, led by the Thai Ministry of Commerce vice minister, met with the USTR on May 13–14. These discussions directly impact the trade enforcement environment in Thailand, potentially affecting numerous business operators involved in the manufacture, import, or export of goods and components. Thailand’s position is that it strictly adheres to and enforces the legal standards for determining qualifying origin and that allegations of transshipment are largely unjustified. Nonetheless, it has agreed to increase its focus on trade compliance and enforcement in Thailand in return for commitments on reciprocal trade benefits with the US, including consideration of tariff exemptions on certain critical Thai imports into the US. Notable Outcomes There
Read More
May 8, 2026
The global trade environment for Thai exporters in 2026 has shifted significantly. Recent enforcement developments in both the United States and the European Union show a clear shift in trade policy: regulators are no longer focused solely on tariff levels, but also on whether products genuinely originate where exporters claim they do. Adding to this complexity, the US Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision striking down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs has upended the legal basis for a major pillar of US tariff policy, creating significant legal and commercial uncertainty for exporters worldwide, including in Thailand. For Thai companies integrated into regional supply chains, this change carries material implications. Although the IEEPA-based US reciprocal tariffs have been struck down, intensified circumvention enforcement continues under separate legal authorities, and the administration has signaled its intent to reimpose tariffs under alternative statutory frameworks, while EU authorities are using anti-circumvention investigations where trade patterns shift. In both jurisdictions, the decisive issue is whether manufacturing in Thailand constitutes substantial transformation under applicable rules of origin. Such origin determinations increasingly drive duty exposure, audit risk and commercial disputes. In 2026, the ability to defend a product’s Thai origin is not merely a procedural step, it is central to preserving market access in the US and EU. Impact Of US Circumvention Enforcement and an Uncertain Tariff Landscape Following the 2025 Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, Thailand saw a shift in its tariff relationship with the US. A substantial range of Thai-origin goods were subject to a 19% reciprocal tariff under the IEEPA. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the use of IEEPA for tariffs has removed the legal basis for that rate. The Administration has indicated it intends to pursue replacement tariffs under other statutory authorities,
Read More
April 9, 2026
In March 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated two significant investigations under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 that directly affect Thailand. The first investigation examines overproduction in manufacturing sectors caused by government support or policies that distort normal market conditions across 16 economies, including Thailand. The second investigation, launched the following day, targets 60 economies, also including Thailand, for alleged failures to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Taken together, these investigations represent a significant escalation in US trade enforcement and create substantial risk for Thai exporters, manufacturers, and businesses with supply chain connections to the United States. The investigations are moving on an accelerated timeline, with the USTR indicating that potential trade measures, including tariffs, could be imposed as early as July 2026. This article provides an overview of the investigations, highlights their specific implications for Thailand, and outlines practical considerations for affected businesses. Section 301 as a Trade Enforcement Tool Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the USTR authority to investigate foreign acts, policies, or practices that are considered unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict US commerce. If the USTR concludes that such practices exist, the statute allows a wide range of remedial measures, including the imposition of tariffs, nontariff trade restrictions, and negotiated agreements with foreign governments. Unlike other trade authorities, Section 301 does not set limits on the level of tariffs or the duration of measures, giving the USTR considerable flexibility to address perceived trade imbalances or unfair practices. Historically, Section 301 investigations take up to a year to complete. In this instance, however, the USTR has indicated that the investigations will proceed on a much faster timetable, with an unofficial target of concluding by July 2026.
Read More