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

August 10, 2026

Vietnam’s New Drug Registration Regulations to Reduce Administrative Burden

The drug registration process in Vietnam will be simplified, particularly for foreign applicants, following the recent issuance by Vietnam’s Ministry of Health (MOH) of a new circular that is expected to reduce administrative hurdles. Circular No. 32/2026/TT-BYT on the registration of drugs and medicinal ingredients (Circular 32) was issued on July 29, 2026, and will take effect on October 1, 2026, replacing Circular No. 12/2025/TT-BYT.

Key provisions of the new circular are discussed below.

Five-Year Data Exclusivity and Five-Month Public Disclosure Framework

Circular 32 updates data protection guidelines by explicitly referencing Article 128 of the amended Intellectual Property Law, which sets out that new drugs supported by clinical trial data submitted for the first time will be granted a five-year data exclusivity period from the date of the initial marketing authorization (MA) approval. Subsequent applications that rely on the originator’s protected data will not be eligible for approval from the date of submission of the originator’s registration dossier until five years after the first MA is granted.

Furthermore, in accordance with the new regulations, the regulatory authority must publicly disclose information on subsequent applications five months before the granting of MA, providing originator companies with an opportunity to exercise and enforce their intellectual property rights.

Simplified Requirements for Foreign Legal Documents

Circular 32 expands the circumstances under which legal documents issued by foreign authorities are exempt from consular legalization and authenticity verification requirements. Specifically, such documents may be exempt if the Drug Administration of Vietnam (DAV) is able to verify their authenticity directly through official electronic means, including written confirmation or email correspondence sent directly to the MOH by the competent foreign authority, or publicly accessible English-language databases maintained by recognized foreign regulatory authorities.

In addition, the new circular permits the submission of electronic notarized copies of legal documents in registration dossiers as an alternative to hard-copy notarized documents.

Detailed Regulations on CEPs

Circular 32 provides more detailed requirements regarding the submission of electronic CEPs (“certification of suitability to the monographs of the European Pharmacopoeia”) within quality dossiers.

  • For CEPs issued prior to September 1, 2023: The CEP must bear the official stamp/confirmation of the finished product manufacturer or applicant, and the CEP authorization section must explicitly list the authorized applicant or manufacturer.
  • For CEPs issued from September 1, 2023, onward: A valid electronic CEP bearing an EDQM (European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare) digital signature, accompanied by an authorization letter must be submitted.

Applicants must also provide the results of a self-search conducted in the EDQM database, including mandatory information such as name of medicinal ingredient, CEP holder information, monograph number, and validity status.

Flexibility and Deferral of CPP Submissions

For new drugs and certain specified cases, applicants may postpone submission of a Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product (CPP) at the time of initial dossier filing by providing a written justification explaining its absence. However, the CPP must be submitted no later than the second round of dossier supplementation in order for the application to remain eligible for MA approval.

Exemption from Legal Documents for Pharmaceutical Ingredients with Granted MA

Where a finished product uses pharmaceutical ingredients that have already been granted MA in Vietnam, and strictly complies with the approved information (including ingredient name, manufacturer, specifications, and source), applicants are exempt from submitting legal documents demonstrating GMP compliance for ingredient manufacturers.

The applicant only needs to submit two certificates of analysis (COAs) for the ingredient—one issued by the ingredient manufacturer and one issued by the finished product manufacturer.

Detailed Implementation Rules for Post-Approval Variations

Under Circular 32, minor variations requiring notification (MiV-N) may be implemented immediately upon receipt of the notification dossier by the DAV or, at the latest, within 12 months from the date of public disclosure of the variation.

For imported drugs and medicinal ingredients, products may continue to be imported and circulated until their expiry date, provided they were dispatched from the port of export before the mandatory implementation deadline.

New Re-examination Pathway

Upon receiving an official refusal decision for a new registration, renewal, or variation application, applicants will have one month to submit a written explanation requesting reconsideration. If the explanation is accepted by the Advisory Council for granting MA or designated experts, the application may be approved directly without requiring the applicant to prepare and submit a completely new dossier. This new re-examination mechanism is expected to reduce the administrative burden, shorten approval timelines, and improve overall regulatory efficiency.

Next Steps

Pharmaceutical companies should review the new provisions for any potential impacts on current and future registration strategies to ensure timely compliance ahead of the circular’s effective date of October 1, 2026.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
February 1, 2021
The latest edition of Practical Law’s Life Sciences Global Guide features contributions from Tilleke & Gibbins attorneys in the firm’s Yangon office. One of the sections they have provided for the Myanmar chapter of this Q&A-style guide to life sciences regulatory frameworks worldwide is “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar.” The section includes discussion of a range of regulatory issues related to the marketing and selling of pharmaceutical products, including the following topics: Regulatory overview: Authorities, scope, and general procedures for pharmaceuticals, biologicals, and medical devices and health care IT Pricing, government funding, and reimbursement: National health care system, price regulation, and reimbursement Clinical trials Manufacturing and distribution Marketing: Authorization for marketing medicinal products, parallel imports and cross-border trade in medicines Restrictions on dealings with health care professionals Selling restrictions Advertising and promotion Data privacy Packaging, labeling, and tracking Product safety, quality, and liability Local establishment, representation, and residency requirements Reform The full “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar” section can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar,” which was published in the Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.
February 1, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Myanmar have contributed to the latest edition of Practical Law’s online Life Sciences Global Guide. The guide is a Q&A-style overview of the regulatory frameworks for the life sciences industry across multiple jurisdictions worldwide, and this year the Myanmar chapter includes two sections, one of which is “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar.” This section runs through the country’s legal and regulatory environment for patents and trademarks—particularly as they relate to pharmaceutical business in the jurisdiction. The section then turns to IP and competition law issues, with questions and answers focusing on how the country’s competition laws and regulations affect the pharmaceutical sector. Readers are also given information on how to properly comply with Myanmar law on competition, including when it comes to licensing of medicines and pharmaceutical technology. The full Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Myanmar guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied the “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar,” which Practical Law published in its Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.
January 15, 2021
Following the recent delisting of almost all parts of the hemp plant from Thailand’s list of prohibited narcotics (see here for further details), the Ministry of Public Health has issued a notification allowing hemp to be used in cosmetics. Prior to this development, this use of hemp (whether from natural or synthetic sources) was not allowed, as it fell under the definition of narcotics under the Notification Re: Ingredients Not Allowed for Use in Cosmetics B.E. 2559 (2016). Under the Ministerial Notification Re: Use of Hemp in Cosmetics B.E. 2564 (2021), which was published in the Government Gazette on January 11, 2021, domestic manufacturers are now allowed to produce cosmetics containing hemp seed oil or hemp seed extract, provided the cosmetics do not have a THC level exceeding 0.2% by weight. To register such products with the Thai FDA, applicants must submit a certificate of analysis, safety data sheet, and label for the agency’s evaluation. The timeline for approval of the registration (notification) of a cosmetic containing hemp seed oil or hemp seed extract is three business days. The applicant (i.e., manufacturer or toll manufacturer) must declare the amount of hemp seed extract or hemp seed oil used in the cosmetic in their notification application. Cosmetics must not use a name for the product that evokes an association with hemp flowers or narcotics, and the name of the product must be within the scope of cosmetics. For example, names containing “inflorescence,” “flower,” “CBD,” “THC” or similar will not be allowed. It should also be noted that Thailand does not yet allow the importation of cosmetics containing hemp seeds or hemp seed extract, and this regulation only applies to domestically produced hemp products—a business currently restricted to individuals or companies with Thai nationality. For more details on this development, or