A Certificate of Origin (C/O) is the “ticket” that lets importers enjoy preferential tariffs under FTAs such as the EVFTA, CPTPP, RCEP and ACFTA. But a forged “ticket” is very costly: a fine of VND 40–80 million, confiscation of goods, back-tax collection — even criminal prosecution. This article analyses the framework under Decree 169/2026/ND-CP (effective 1 July 2026).
1. Administrative fines: VND 40–80 million + confiscation
Article 12(7)(a) of Decree 169/2026/ND-CP imposes a fine of VND 40,000,000 to VND 80,000,000 for using forged documents or materials, or unlawful documents or materials, to declare, pay or present to customs authorities, where the act is not subject to criminal prosecution. A forged C/O is a form of “forged document or material”.
Historical comparison: under Decree 128/2020/ND-CP (expired 1 July 2026), the corresponding range was VND 50–70 million — no longer applicable.
Beyond the fine, Article 12 provides:
- Clause 8 — supplementary penalty: (a) confiscation of administrative violation exhibits being goods for acts under Clause 7(a) (including fake C/O cases); (b) confiscation of exhibits being forged documents or materials and unlawful documents or materials;
- Clause 9 — remedial measures: mandatory payment of an amount equal to the value of exhibits consumed, dispersed or destroyed in violation of regulations;
- Tax consequences: back-collection of wrongly enjoyed preferential tax — customs rejects the preferential treatment and re-assesses tax at MFN/ordinary rates — plus late-payment interest under the Law on Tax Administration 108/2025/QH15.
2. Three tiers: administrative → tax evasion → criminal
| Tier | Condition | Sanction |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative violation | Fake C/O used but tax-evasion elements not met | VND 40–80 million fine + confiscation of goods and the forged C/O + back-tax under Article 10 (10%/20%) |
| Tax evasion | The Clause 7(a) act aims at tax evasion (Article 12(10)) | Penalised under Article 15: 1–3 times the evaded tax + mandatory payment of the full evaded tax. One act — one sanction for the same tax amount: Article 10 is not applied concurrently for the same shortfall |
| Criminal | Signs of a crime | Prosecuted under the Penal Code (see section 4) |
3. Fully forged C/O vs altered C/O
- Fully forged C/O: the Article 12(7) framework above applies;
- Arbitrary erasure or alteration of a C/O resulting in a tax shortfall: a tax evasion act under Article 15(1)(a) (“arbitrarily erasing or altering documents resulting in a tax shortfall”) — fined 1–3 times the evaded tax;
- Erasure/alteration WITHOUT a tax shortfall: subject to administrative penalties under the corresponding provisions of Decree 169/2026 — the specific amount must be checked against the original text, not taken from unverified figures;
- Misdeclared origin (not document forgery): handled under misdeclaration rules, depending on whether a tax shortfall results.
4. The criminal boundary: three possible offences
Article 3(3) of Decree 169/2026 lists Penal Code Articles 188–196 and 200 as the dividing line between administrative penalties and criminal prosecution. For fake C/Os, three offences matter:
- Article 341 of the 2015 Penal Code (amended 2017) — forging seals or documents of agencies and organisations;
- Article 200 — tax evasion (when the evaded tax reaches the criminal threshold);
- Article 188 — smuggling (if tied to cross-border/illicit-channel conduct).
The specific penalty frames and quantitative thresholds of each offence must be checked directly against the current Penal Code, not assumed.
5. When a C/O is questioned: origin verification and company rights
- Customs conducts origin verification under the rules on determining origin of imported/exported goods (Circular 33/2023/TT-BTC; note Circular 124/2026/TT-BTC of 22 August 2026 adds origin-determination rules — check the validity and relationship of the two documents before citing);
- Companies have the right to explain and provide documents proving the goods’ origin;
- Disagreeing with a decision rejecting the C/O or re-assessing tax: the right to complain under the Law on Complaints 02/2011/QH13 (90-day limitation; amended by Law 136/2025/QH15, effective 1 July 2026) or to sue in an administrative case.
On rules of origin and preferential C/Os under each FTA (EVFTA, CPTPP, RCEP, ACFTA, etc.): the origin rules specific to each agreement and the guiding circulars of the Ministry of Industry and Trade / Ministry of Finance apply.
6. Does “not knowing the C/O was fake” exempt liability?
There is no exemption. The principle: the customs declarant is responsible for the authenticity of submitted and presented documents (Circular 121/2025/TT-BTC emphasises that declarants are responsible for the authenticity of declaration contents and documents). Decree 169/2026 contains no “unknowing” exemption — lack of knowledge is at most a mitigating circumstance in sentencing, not a basis for exemption.
Companies should therefore demonstrate reasonable due diligence on C/Os: checking formal validity, cross-checking information with suppliers, keeping communication records — to be considered for mitigation if a violation occurs. Never assume “not knowing means no fine”.
7. Prevention: verify the C/O before declaring
- Verify C/O authenticity with the exporter/supplier from the contract negotiation stage;
- Work with reputable suppliers with a compliance track record;
- Cross-check the C/O against other dossier documents (commercial invoice, bill of lading, packing list) to spot inconsistencies;
- When in doubt, engage customs proactively rather than declaring “at risk”.
Frequently asked questions
Does using a fake C/O mean losing preferential rights in the future?
No direct provision on “loss of future preferential rights” has been found — it should not be asserted without a basis. The certain consequences are the fine, confiscation and back-tax for the current case.
What about a lightly altered C/O with no tax impact?
Still an administrative violation penalised under Decree 169/2026; the specific amount must be checked against the original text.
If the foreign supplier provided the fake C/O, is the importer still fined?
Possibly. The customs declarant is responsible for presented documents; the supplier’s role is not an exemption basis, only a circumstance considered in handling.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific cases should be discussed with a lawyer or the customs authorities.
C/O under suspicion or preferential tax rejected? Contact FLAT Law Firm: /en/contact/ — lawyers with 30+ years of experience assisting with origin verification, explanations and complaints against tax re-assessment decisions.
