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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 2, 2026
On July 24, 2026, a new 12.5% Section 301 tariff took effect on most imports from Thailand into the United States. The tariff was imposed by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, following a finding that Thailand had failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on imports of goods produced with forced labor. The new tariff replaced the temporary 10% Section 122 surcharge that had applied since February 24, 2026, following the US Supreme Court’s invalidation of the prior tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The 12.5% tariff is not the only potential source of additional US duties on Thai-origin goods. Thailand is also subject to a separate Section 301 investigation concerning structural excess manufacturing capacity, which could result in additional duties. Unlike the Section 122 surcharge, which was capped at 15% and limited to 150 days, Section 301 provides a more flexible framework for imposing and maintaining trade measures. Section 301 actions are generally subject to a four-year termination rule but may continue following a review if continuation is requested. The new tariff therefore represents a potentially longer-term change in the tariff treatment of Thai-origin goods entering the US market. This article explains the legal and policy developments that led to the new tariff, how the Section 301 tariff differs from the tariff regimes that preceded it, Thailand’s response and ongoing negotiations with the United States, and the practical implications for businesses that manufacture, export, import, or distribute goods between Thailand and the United States. From IEEPA to Section 122 to Section 301 IEEPA Era (April 2025–February 2026) Beginning in April 2025, the US administration imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), invoking national emergencies relating to trade
September 28, 2026
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
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.
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,