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

May 24, 2018

New Regulations on Foreign Investment in Goods Trading

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Goods trading and activities directly related to goods trading are considered a “conditional” business for foreign investment in Vietnam, meaning the market is open to foreign investors provided they meet certain conditions. This area was governed for more than 10 years by Decree No. 23/2007/ND-CP (Decree 23), which was in line with the old 2005 Investment Law and gradually became out-of-date, especially when the new 2014 Investment Law took effect on July 1, 2015. Given this fact, on January 15, 2018, Decree No. 09/2018/ND-CP (Decree 9) was issued and took immediate effect, replacing Decree 23 as the primary legal basis for foreign investment in goods trading in Vietnam. Decree 9 provides many significant changes in line with the 2014 Investment Law for foreign investors and their wholly set-up foreign invested enterprises (FIEs). Some of the key changes are summarized below.

Single authority for licensing. Under Decree 9, the local Department of Industry and Trade (DOIT) has become the sole licensing authority for licensing matters in goods trading. The DOIT is also responsible for liaising with and seeking consultations from the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) in any application dossiers required in- principle approvals from the MOIT. Though this is an internal working process between the DOIT and the MOIT, the relevant foreign investor or FIEs will be kept updated.

Some sub-license requirements removed. Under Decree 23, to engage in import, export and wholesale of goods, FIEs were required to have such activities with specific HS codes of the traded goods recorded in the Investment Registration Certificate, or separately in a sub-license called a Trading License (a.k.a. Business License). Furthermore, Decree 23 regulated that the in-principle approval from the MOIT was a must in case of granting wholesale rights to FIEs. Decree 9 relaxes these requirements. Accordingly, specific HS codes of traded goods are no longer recorded in the Investment Certificate and provided that the FIEs have rights to conduct import, export and wholesale of goods recorded in their Investment Registration Certificates as the enterprises’ business lines, they are entitled to legally do such activities without a Trading License, for any kinds of goods that are not in the list of products/goods prohibited from being imported and distributed in Vietnam. Decree 9 reserves the Trading License requirement for the import and wholesale of oil and lubricants only.

Retail sub-license easier to secure. Under Decree 9, there is a significant change in the procedure for an FIE to obtain a Trading License for retailing. The local DOIT no longer needs to seek consultation from the MOIT as an in-principle approval to grant the license, which will help shorten the timeline for obtaining the license. However, in-principle approval from the MOIT is still needed for retailing rice, sugar, video records, books, newspapers and magazines.

Retail outlet and the “economic needs test” requirement.  Similar to Decree 23, Decree 9 allows FIEs with a Trading License for retailing to set up a first retail outlet; however, to set up subsequent retail outlets, a vaguely defined “economic needs test” (ENT) may be required to prove the viability of the additional outlet. Under Decree 9, FIEs can be exempt from an ENT if the subsequent outlet satisfies the following conditions: (1) it has an area of less than 500 sqm; (2) it is located in a shopping mall; and (3) such retail outlet is not classified as a convenience store or mini supermarket. Decree 9 also provides much clearer criteria for the ENT. These improvements should allow FIEs to more easily set up their own retail outlets for distributing their products to end-users, and make the retail market in Vietnam more welcoming to foreign investment.

Clarification of “related activities.” Decree 23 and the 2005 Commercial Law were unclear as to which business activities were considered “activities directly related to goods trading,” which caused difficulties for both foreign investors/FIEs and licensing authorities in applying the conditions/procedures in practice. To solve this gap, Decree 9 clearly lists out the activities directly related to goods trading, including: (1) commercial assessment services; (2) logistics services; (3) goods leasing services (exclusive of finance leasing); (4) enhancement services (exclusive of advertising); (5) commercial intermediary services; (6) e-commerce services; and (7) goods tender organizing services. A Trading License is required for FIEs to conduct  these activities, except for certain logistics services included in Vietnam’s WTO Commitments in Services. The procedure for obtaining a Trading License in these cases requires an in-principle approval from the MOIT. 

Post-M&A requirements in goods trading. One of the important changes under the 2014 Investment Law is to provide a legal regime for mergers and acquisitions. Before Decree 9, there remained many gaps and inconsistencies in mergers and acquisitions in the goods trading field. In fact, when foreign investors acquired shares in a local trading enterprise to make it an FIE, Decree 23 did not have specific provisions as to what the FIEs had to do to continue trading legally. Decree 9 fills these gaps, providing a clear legal framework for trading FIEs formed via share acquisitions or capital purchases by foreign investors. In particular, Decree 9 introduces a specific procedure for such trading FIEs that have retail outlet(s) to maintain and continue running such retail outlets.

Outlook. The changes in Decree 9 show that Vietnam is still trying to shield local retailers from foreign investors with greater financial capacity and retail experience. However, by minimizing the administrative procedures and broadening opportunities for foreign investors/FIEs to engage in goods trading, Decree 9 also demonstrates the government’s intent to attract foreign investment. With an increase of competition in the Vietnam retail market, Vietnamese consumers may also benefit when more imported products can be sold at an affordable price. However, Decree 9 is still very new, and there are bound to be conflicts among the authorities in terms of understanding and application. It is hoped that the MOIT will issue additional guidance on Decree 9 soon.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More