Receiving notice that customs has refused your C/O, most businesses panic and assume any error means losing tariff preferences. That is not the case. The law distinguishes “minor errors/insignificant discrepancies not affecting validity” (accepted) from “material errors” (refused). The first thing a business must do is determine which group its C/O falls into — then choose the response. The baseline rule: a C/O must not be erased or added to; errors are handled by striking through with certification by the signatory/C/O-issuing body, or by issuing a replacement C/O.
10 minor errors customs will accept
Under Clause 8, Article 15 of Circular 33/2023/TT-BTC (effective 15/7/2023, still in force), customs accepts an origin-certifying document with minor errors or slight discrepancies versus other documents in the customs dossier, if consistent with the actual imported goods. Common cases include:
- Spelling or typing errors that do not change the declared content;
- Different marking styles in boxes (typed vs handwritten, “x” vs “√”);
- Slight differences between the signature on the document and the specimen signature;
- Differences in units of measurement;
- Paper-size differences versus the prescribed form;
- Ink-colour differences;
- HS-code differences that still match at the 6-digit level, differing only at the 8-digit level;
- Vessel/flight name or number differences due to a change of transport;
- Minor differences in the goods description;
- Other minor discrepancies under international treaties as notified by customs.
A practical note: the “acceptable minor error” threshold also depends on each customs branch’s practice and each FTA — businesses should present a documented explanation with cross-checking papers rather than assuming “a minor error always passes”.
Cases where a C/O is refused
Under Article 14 of Circular 33/2023/TT-BTC, customs refuses an origin-certifying document where: (i) the declarant submits it supplementarily past the prescribed deadline; (ii) the exporting country’s competent authority notifies cancellation of the document or confirms the goods do not meet origin criteria. In addition, following examination under Article 15, if customs has sufficient grounds to determine the document invalid, it will refuse it.
On procedure: Clause 4, Article 15 provides that customs notifies the refusal on the customs electronic data processing system or in writing; records the reason for refusal directly on the document and returns it to the declarant to contact the issuing authority/organisation or the manufacturer/exporter. Tax consequences under Clause 1, Article 10: goods eligible for tariff preferences → MFN or ordinary import duty rates apply and the goods are cleared; goods under special control → not cleared and handled under the law; goods subject to trade-remedy measures → duty rates per the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s decision.
Three handling scenarios for businesses
Scenario 1 — Minor errors: explain to customs and provide cross-checking documents (invoice, packing list, bill of lading, customs declaration) proving the error is consistent with the actual goods — citing Clause 8, Article 15 of Circular 33/2023/TT-BTC. A tidy, clear cross-reference file shortens processing time.
Scenario 2 — Material errors (wrong goods description, wrong origin criterion, wrong country of origin…): immediately contact the exporter/C/O-issuing authority to request re-issuance or correction. While waiting, complete tax-guarantee procedures to obtain clearance (the guarantee mechanism in Circular 33/2023/TT-BTC), then submit the document supplementarily and claim a duty refund.
Scenario 3 — C/O cancelled by the exporting country or confirmed as not meeting origin criteria: that C/O can no longer be salvaged — the business must accept non-preferential duty rates and consider a complaint or dispute with the exporter under the signed trade contract.
Re-issuance of lost or damaged C/O
Where a C/O is lost, misplaced or damaged, the exporter applies for re-issuance based on the file kept at the C/O-issuing authority; the re-issued C/O is marked “DUPLICATE”. Decree 31/2018/ND-CP contains provisions on re-issuance, refusal of issuance and revocation of C/O — businesses should reconcile the full text when applying them.
The right to complain against a C/O refusal
A business disagreeing with customs’ C/O refusal may lodge an administrative complaint under the Law on Complaints 02/2011/QH13, or sue in court under the Law on Administrative Procedures 93/2015/QH15 if dissatisfied with the complaint outcome. Mind the complaint time limits so the right is not lost.
Financial consequences and sanctions
- Refused C/O → recovery of duties (the difference between MFN and preferential rates) plus late-payment interest under current tax-administration law;
- Administrative sanctions under Decree 169/2026/ND-CP (effective 01/7/2026) — the specific articles and fine levels must be checked directly in the text, not inferred from repealed instruments;
- Deliberate use of invalid or forged C/O → beyond administrative sanctions, cases with criminal signs are prosecuted under Article 188 (smuggling) and Article 200 (tax evasion) of the 2015 Penal Code (amended 2017).
Pre-submission checklist for C/O
- Cross-check the C/O against the invoice, packing list and bill of lading: goods description, quantity and value must match;
- Check the HS code: matching at the 6-digit level as required;
- Verify the origin criterion on the C/O reflects actual production;
- Check the signature and seal of the C/O-issuing authority/organisation;
- Check the C/O’s validity period at the time of customs procedures;
- Never erase or add to a C/O; strike through with certification or request re-issuance for errors;
- For retroactively issued C/O: check the “ISSUED RETROACTIVELY/ISSUED RETROSPECTIVELY” stamp and the validity counted from the shipment date.
Is your C/O being questioned or refused by customs? Reach us via the Contact page of FLAT Law Firm for assistance.
The information in this article is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice.
For reference only, not legal advice. Content quality-checked by the AI Legal Council; not yet reviewed by a human lawyer.