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 28, 2026

Vietnam’s New Forced-Labor Import Ban: How Should Businesses Respond?

Subscribe to Updates

On July 22, 2026, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 292/2026/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the Law on Foreign Trade Management (Decree 292). Decree 292 came into effect on September 5, 2026, replacing Decree No. 69/2018/NND-CP, and introduces several important changes to Vietnam’s foreign trade regime.

Of particular relevance is the addition to the list of goods prohibited from importation of “products and goods extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or partly through forced labor by enterprises, countries, or territories in accordance with relevant international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a party.” This new prohibition introduces forced-labor considerations into Vietnam’s import compliance framework and may have practical implications for how businesses manage related risks across their operations and supply chains.

Implementation of the New Prohibition

According to Decree 292, the minister or head of the relevant ministerial-level agency is responsible for publishing the detailed list and corresponding harmonized system (HS) codes for each category of goods prohibited from export or import under its purview. Goods involving forced labor fall under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, as of the date of this article, no corresponding list has been published specifying the goods to which the forced-labor prohibition applies, leaving businesses without official guidance on how the prohibition will be applied or enforced in practice.

Nevertheless, this absence does not suspend the prohibition’s application. As Decree 292 has already taken effect, goods involving forced labor remain subject to the general legal framework applicable to goods prohibited from importation. In particular, Decree 169/2026/ND-CP provides for administrative penalties for the importation or transportation of prohibited goods into Vietnam. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the violation, criminal liability may also arise under the Criminal Code. In practice, enforcement is likely to depend on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ forthcoming list, but the legal basis for liability already exists. It is therefore important for businesses to consider the implications of the new prohibition and establish appropriate procedures to manage potential forced-labor risks throughout their business activities.

Practical Compliance Considerations for Businesses

Under the Vietnamese Labor Code, “forced labor” is defined as “the use of force, threats of force, or other means to compel a person to work against his/her will”. The definition focuses on whether a worker is made to work involuntarily through coercive conduct or other means.

For businesses, the practical question is where such circumstances may arise in their own operations, supply chains, and business relationships, and what measures can be put in place to identify, address, and respond to the resulting risks.

1. Internal Controls

The first area of consideration is the business’s own operations. That is, facilities and processes under its direct ownership or control where workers involved in extracting, producing, or manufacturing goods destined for import into Vietnam are recruited, employed, or managed. At each stage, from recruitment through employment and termination, businesses should examine whether their policies and practices may create circumstances that undermine a worker’s genuine freedom to enter into, continue, or end the employment relationship.

To help prevent forced labor within their own operations, businesses should establish clear internal policies prohibiting coercive employment practices, assign responsibility for monitoring compliance with those policies, periodically review employment records for signs of coercion or restricted consent, and maintain accessible grievance mechanisms. These measures can help businesses identify potential concerns within their employment practices before they translate into risks affecting goods intended for import into Vietnam.

2. Supply-Chain Controls

The second area of consideration extends beyond the business’s own operations to its suppliers, contractors, and other third parties involved in extracting, producing, or manufacturing goods destined for import into Vietnam. As businesses generally have less direct oversight of these parties than of their own operations, the focus shifts to contractual safeguards and compliance mechanisms that provide reasonable visibility into, and influence over, the labor practices associated with sourcing such goods.

This exposure is not merely theoretical. Businesses that rely on third parties to extract, produce, or manufacture goods for export may face consequences in the destination market where those goods are subsequently found to involve forced labor, notwithstanding that the underlying practices occurred outside the business’s direct operations or knowledge. In such circumstances, the business may bear the immediate consequences under the destination market’s import enforcement regime, while recovery of any resulting losses from the third party responsible for the underlying conduct may require a separate and protracted dispute.

Against this background, businesses should build specific forced-labor safeguards into their commercial agreements with suppliers, contractors, and other third parties in the supply chain, including representations and warranties regarding compliance with applicable forced-labor standards, audit rights over records and facilities, and appropriate remedies, such as termination or indemnification, where noncompliance is confirmed. These contractual safeguards should be supported by practical due diligence, such as supplier questionnaires and review of existing third-party labor certifications, with more frequent review applied to suppliers operating in regions or sectors already flagged for forced-labor risk in publicly available assessments. Together, these measures provide businesses with a practical basis for assessing whether goods sourced from third parties may present forced-labor risks that could affect their eligibility for import into Vietnam.

3. Risk Management and Remediation

The third area of consideration is how businesses respond once a forced-labor concern is identified, whether within their own operations or their supply chain. Given the legal exposure outlined above, the focus shifts from prevention to containment: managing that exposure and related commercial disruption while minimizing the impact on the business’s operations.

To manage this effectively, businesses should designate a specific function responsible for escalating and investigating reported concerns within a set timeframe, and for maintaining a written record of the findings and any corrective steps taken. Where a concern is confirmed, businesses should identify the specific shipments or transactions affected and, before those goods are imported, assess whether corrective action can be completed and documented in time to support the goods’ eligibility for import under Decree 292.

Where the concern involves a third party, engaging that third party in a time-bound corrective action plan, with clear conditions and a verification step before further shipments proceed, may in some circumstances be more appropriate than immediate termination, which may not resolve the underlying risk and could disrupt the business’s supply arrangements.

Taken together, these measures provide businesses with a practical basis for responding to forced-labor concerns while managing the associated legal and commercial risks and minimizing disruption to their import operations.

Outlook

Decree 292 is now in force, and the absence of implementing guidance does not remove the exposure businesses face if forced-labor risks materialize in the goods they import. Rather than waiting for the Ministry of Home Affairs to publish its detailed list, businesses are better placed to begin addressing this risk now, using measures that can largely be built on top of existing HR, procurement, and compliance functions.

Establishing internal controls, extending appropriate oversight to suppliers and other third parties, and maintaining a clear process for responding to identified concerns provide a practical starting point that businesses can refine as further guidance under Decree 292 becomes available, without requiring significant changes to their existing operations from the outset.

Related Professionals

Practices

Compliance and Investigations

Customs and International Trade

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 23, 2026
Many multinational companies are familiar with the concept of “time off in lieu” (TOIL), under which employees receive compensatory time off instead of overtime pay for additional hours worked. While TOIL is common in many jurisdictions, employers in Thailand should be cautious, as Thai labor law does not expressly recognize TOIL as a substitute for statutory overtime-related compensation. Under the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) (LPA), employees who work overtime or perform work on holidays are generally entitled to statutory overtime, holiday, or holiday overtime compensation, including: Overtime Pay: 1.5 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed beyond normal working hours on a regular working day. Holiday Pay: 1 or 2 times the employee’s normal wage rate for work performed during normal working hours on a holiday, depending on category of employee. Holiday Overtime Pay: 3 times the employee’s normal wage rate for overtime work performed on a holiday. Importantly, the LPA does not contain any provision expressly permitting employers to substitute overtime-related compensation with compensatory leave, as such compensation is treated as a payment obligation rather than additional time off. Why TOIL Can Be Risky in Thailand Thai labor law is protective in nature, and statutory entitlements to overtime, holiday, and holiday overtime pay are generally regarded as minimum employee rights. As a result, these rights cannot be waived, even with the employee’s consent. Therefore, an employer who grants TOIL instead of paying statutory overtime-related compensation may still be exposed to claims for unpaid amounts, notwithstanding that compensatory leave has already been provided. Thai courts have affirmed this principle, holding that employers remain liable for statutory payments for work performed beyond normal working hours even where substitute time off has been granted. Are There Any Exceptions? Certain categories of employees are exempt from overtime-related compensation,
Read More
September 22, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Thailand chapter to Shipping Law 2026 from the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This comprehensive guide provides detailed legal analysis of shipping laws, regulatory frameworks, and maritime dispute resolution across key maritime jurisdictions worldwide. Each chapter follows a structured Q&A format, organized into critical sections covering key aspects of maritime law and practice, including: Marine casualties, collision liability, pollution regimes, salvage, and general average Marine cargo claims, statutory carrier obligations, liability limits, and misdeclaration of cargo Maritime passenger claims, personal injury liabilities, and consumer case procedures Vessel arrest, counter-security, provisional attachment, and maritime liens Evidence preservation, perpetuation procedures, and electronic document disclosure Court jurisdiction, specialized IP&IT litigation, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Enforcement of foreign court judgments and arbitral awards under the New York Convention 1958 Offshore wind energy initiatives, regulatory permits, and cabotage restrictions Sector developments, including the Landbridge project and decarbonization trends The Thailand chapter, authored by Noppramart Thammateeradaycho and Panchaya Rattanaumnuaishai, examines these topics in detail, highlighting key statutory regimes such as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), the Arrest of Ships Act, and the jurisdiction of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court. The complete Thailand chapter is available as a PDF below. The Thailand chapter—and the full Shipping Law 2026 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
Read More
September 14, 2026
On August 23, 2026, Vietnam’s National Assembly passed Law No. 11/2026/QH16, amending the country’s Customs Law with effect from March 1, 2027. The amendments represent a substantial reform of Vietnam’s customs-based intellectual property enforcement regime. The reforms come amid considerable external pressure. In its 2026 Special 301 review, the US Trade Representative (USTR) designated Vietnam a “priority foreign country,” citing widespread counterfeiting, weak border enforcement, limited ex officio customs powers, and the absence of controls over goods in transit. Vietnam’s legislative response signals a commitment to bringing its border enforcement practices into line with international expectations. For IP rights holders operating in or through Vietnam, the amended law introduces several tools that substantially strengthen enforcement options at the border. Closing the Transit Gap One of the most consequential amendments is the extension of IP-related customs enforcement to goods in transit. Previously, Vietnam’s customs regime applied IP controls only to goods being imported or exported, a gap the USTR had specifically identified as enabling infringing goods to pass through Vietnamese ports with impunity. Vietnam’s geographic position as a logistics hub for Southeast Asia means that substantial volumes of goods transit its ports and free-trade zones. Extending enforcement to cover these shipments brings Vietnam closer to the standard set by the EU’s customs enforcement regulation and addresses a longstanding concern of multinational brand owners whose goods are frequently counterfeited in the region. Strengthened Suspension and Ex Officio Powers The amended law introduces a dual-track suspension mechanism (Article 73(2)). Customs authorities will suspend clearance upon request by an IP rights holder (or authorized representative) who provides evidence of IP ownership, evidence of infringement, and a financial guarantee. Customs can now proactively suspend clearance on an ex officio basis if, during inspection and monitoring, they discover “clear grounds” to suspect that imported, exported,
Read More
September 9, 2026
On August 25, 2026, Thailand’s cabinet approved in principle a draft amendment that would extend mandatory social security coverage to three categories of workers currently excluded from Thailand’s compulsory social security system. The amendment, proposed by the Ministry of Labour, would modify the Royal Decree Prescribing Businesses and Employees Excluded from the Social Security Act B.E. 2560 (2017). Newly Covered Workers The cabinet-approved proposal would remove the exclusions for the following three categories of employees, bringing them within Thailand’s mandatory social security system: Workers in seasonal cultivation (pho pluk), forestry (pa mai), and livestock (liang sat) businesses that do not employ workers year-round and whose operations do not include other types of business activities. Notably, fishery (pramong) workers were excluded from this amendment following objections raised at a Social Security Board meeting on April 30, 2025, because employers and employees in the fishery sector can already agree to opt into social security coverage under fishery labor laws. Domestic workers and other employees of individual employers where the work performed is not part of a business operation (e.g., housekeepers, gardeners, drivers). This group has actively demanded inclusion in the social security system. Workers employed in street-stall businesses operating fixed street stalls (kan kha phaeng loi). The rationale for including street-stall workers is that their employers have fixed, identifiable places of business that can be inspected. Accordingly, workers engaged in itinerant street hawking (kan kha re) remain excluded. The expanded coverage would apply to both Thai and foreign employees who possess valid identity documents and work permits, including migrant workers who have been granted special permission to work in Thailand. The Social Security Act B.E. 2533 (1990) does not restrict social security registration based on nationality, allowing these workers to register as insured persons under section 33. Employer Obligations and Employee
Read More