From 1 March 2027, Law No. 11/2026/QH16 will expressly bring transit goods into Vietnam’s specialised customs IP framework and give Customs a clear ex officio power over suspected transit IP counterfeits. A rights-holder-requested transit suspension also has a credible statutory basis, but the requested-suspension pathway remains less textually certain and will require careful implementation.

By Le Quang Vinh | Senior Partner | Bross & Partners

What the law clearly changes?

On 23 August 2026, Vietnam adopted Law No. 11/2026/QH16, effective from 1 March 2027. It amends rather than replaces the 2014 Customs Law and must be read together with the IP Law, including the changes made by Law No. 131/2025/QH15 and Law No. 11/2026/QH16.

From 1 March 2027, the specialised customs IP framework will expressly cover transit. Rights holders will be able to file inspection-and-supervision applications with a convenient regional customs authority; the statutory review period will be 10 working days. Most importantly, Customs will gain express law-level power to suspend import, export or transit goods ex officio where clear grounds indicate suspected IP-counterfeit goods.

The reform does not create transit control from nothing. Before 1 March 2027, transit goods remain subject to declaration, inspection and supervision under general customs powers; separate administrative-offence rules permit sanctions and remedies for particular transit counterfeits, most clearly counterfeit-trademark and counterfeit-geographical-indication goods. The structural problem is that pre-amendment Article 73(3) excludes transit from the specialised IP suspension regime. Law No. 11 will remove that exclusion, regularising the fragmented architecture while making a targeted substantive expansion.

The word “counterfeit” matters. Under IP Law Article 213, IP-counterfeit goods comprise counterfeit-trademark goods, counterfeit-geographical-indication goods and pirated goods. The new ex officio tool should not be restated as a general power to stop every transit shipment alleged to infringe a patent, industrial design, trade name or other IP right. Those cases may require another evidentiary and enforcement route.

One framework, two suspension triggers

The cleanest way to read the reform is to separate inspection and supervision from suspension, and then separate requested suspension from ex officio suspension.

First, from 1 March 2027, inspection and supervision will clearly reach transit. Revised Customs Law Article 74 covers import, export and transit, and will allow a rights holder or authorised representative to file at a convenient regional customs authority. An accepted measure will last two years and may be extended for another two, subject to the remaining protection term.

Second, requested transit suspension has a credible but incompletely aligned statutory basis. The amended title and opening scope of IP Law Article 216 include transit, while Article 216(2)(a) recognises rights-holder-requested suspension without excluding it. A systematic reading therefore supports extending the requested-control architecture to transit.

However, Customs Law Article 73(2) still describes requested suspension only for export or import goods. Article 217 remains framed around requests to control export or import goods; Article 218(3) still refers only to the exporter or importer; and revised Article 74 points back to Article 73(2) for suspension requirements.

The responsible conclusion is neither absence nor certainty. The statutory basis has moved toward transit, but rights-holder-triggered suspension remains less textually certain than ex officio action. For a live shipment, counsel should present both readings and verify implementing practice rather than promise acceptance on the same basis as an import or export request.

The ex officio route, by contrast, is explicit. From 1 March 2027, revised Customs Law Article 73(2) and IP Law Article 216(2)(b) will expressly allow Customs to act where there are clear grounds to suspect that import, export or transit goods are IP-counterfeit goods.

Four timing points and the Article 219 interface

The regime has four separate timing points. A regional customs authority has 10 working days from receiving a complete inspection-and-supervision dossier to accept it, seek supplementation or refuse with reasons. After a monitored shipment showing signs of infringement is notified, IP Law Article 219 gives the applicant three working days to request suspension; otherwise procedures continue unless Customs considers administrative action. On receiving a complete suspension application, the head of the customs authority handling the shipment has two working hours to suspend or refuse. A suspension ordinarily lasts 10 working days and may, for legitimate reasons and with additional security, be extended up to 20 working days.

Each clock has a different function: 10 days creates recordal coverage; three days allows escalation after detection; two hours governs Customs’ decision on a complete request; and the final 10-day period governs the suspension itself.

Article 219 leaves a practical interface question. Law No. 11 repeals Customs Law Articles 75 and 76 and relocates the operative suspension procedure to revised Article 74, without expressly identifying what governs the goods before a formal suspension decision. The three-day window assumes detection and notification, but the shipment is not clearly stated to be either free to move or held. Implementing practice should therefore clarify the legal basis, trigger and cost consequences of any interim restraint, especially for storage, demurrage or detention losses.

Regional filing creates another implementation issue. The statute permits filing at a convenient regional customs authority but does not say whether one acceptance automatically has nationwide operational effect. Filing location and dissemination should therefore be treated separately: select the filing point by actual trade and risk routes, then confirm how the accepted recordal reaches other customs units under the post-amendment workflow.

Build for detection, decision and conversion

The commercial opportunity created by the reform is not a faster certificate bundle. It is a more usable Customs-response system.

Detection should use five controlled data layers: rights (registrations, ownership and authorisation); product (descriptions, HS codes, models, SKUs, packaging, labels, QR, serial and batch-code logic, and genuine-versus-suspect comparisons); trusted trade (known importers, exporters, distributors, OEM channels and logistics partners); risk intelligence (suspicious actors, routes, warehouses, marketplaces and recurring patterns, with sources and confidence levels); and response (authenticity contacts, decision authority, security, evidence preservation and counsel).

Those layers are an operating architecture, not a claim that Vietnam Customs captures every data point as a structured VNACCS field. Some information belongs in the formal Customs-facing material; some may come through later intelligence updates; and some must remain in the rights holder’s own response file.

Channel data also needs a legal safeguard. An unauthorised trader, route or logistics provider is a risk indicator, not proof of counterfeiting. Genuine goods, contractual leakage and parallel-import questions must be assessed separately under the applicable exhaustion and infringement rules.

Decision requires named authenticity contacts, clear internal authority and a pre-approved approach to security. A recordal is operationally weak if the notice reaches an unmonitored inbox or if no one can authorise the next step within the three-day and two-hour windows. Conversion requires a plan for preserving evidence and moving a temporary customs suspension into the correct civil, administrative or other enforcement route before the suspension period expires. Suspension is not seizure, a sanction or a final determination of infringement.

That distinction matters especially for non-counterfeit transit goods because downstream sanctions do not treat transit uniformly. Articles 10 and 11 of Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP, as amended, exclude transit from relevant transport offences for ordinary industrial-property infringement; Articles 12 and 13 expressly include transit for counterfeit trademark or geographical-indication goods and specified counterfeit labels, packaging and items. Pirated goods qualify under Article 213 for ex officio suspension, although Decree No. 341/2025/ND-CP is less explicit about transit. Border-control authority alone therefore establishes neither a substantive administrative offence nor a final remedy.

Most of this preparation does not depend on predicting future implementing instruments. Rights, product identifiers, route intelligence, contact authority, security readiness and evidence protocols are reusable assets under either reading of the unresolved transit trigger.

Conclusion

Vietnam’s 2026 reform changes the question from “Have we recorded the right in Vietnam?” to “Can Customs identify the right shipment, can our team decide defensibly in time, and can we convert a temporary stop into the correct legal route?”

For rights holders, that is the practical value of acting before 1 March 2027. The statutory framework is already clear enough to justify cleaning up reusable detection and response assets now, while the remaining transit-request and regional-dissemination mechanics can be updated as binding guidance and practice settle.

This article analyses enacted law available at 3 September 2026. Primary sources are Law No. 11/2026/QH16 and the IP Law as amended by Laws No. 131/2025/QH15 and 11/2026/QH16. Relevant downstream instruments include Decree No. 99/2013/ND-CP, as amended by Decrees No. 46/2024/ND-CP and 186/2026/ND-CP, and Decree No. 341/2025/ND-CP. Draft instruments are not treated as binding. Procedures may change before 1 March 2027. This is general information, not case-specific legal advice.

Bross & Partners – an intellectual property law firm ranked Tier 1 by Legal 500 Asia Pacific – has extensive experience in customs border protection of intellectual property rights and in handling matters relating to IP enforcement at customs checkpoints. Please contact:

LinkedIn | Email: vinh@bross.vn | Mobile: +84 903 287 057
Whatsapp: +84 903 287 057 | Microsoft Teams: vinh@bross.vn