An IRC refusal by an industrial park management board and a refusal by the Department of Finance (successor to the former Department of Planning and Investment) are two events that look alike on paper — the same non-approval document — but differ in root cause: park boards refuse mainly because the project does not fit their park, while the Department refuses mainly because the investor or the dossier fails general conditions. Identifying the root cause correctly is what selects the right next route: which point to complain against, or whether to take the project to another park.
This article covers only the refusal event and the routes after refusal. The IRC-issuing authority framework between management boards and the Department is presented in this team’s piece FDI-LC-0503, and the high-tech park project case in EXP-0789 — those pieces are the authority foundation; this one is the handling layer once the answer is already “no”. One practical note applies throughout: every route starts from the written refusal notice stating its grounds — if the notice does not state grounds clearly, requesting clarification of grounds is the first step, because complaining against an unstated reason is complaining into a void.
The core difference: refusal on park planning versus refusal on investor conditions
An industrial park management board assesses a project primarily through the park’s lens: whether the intended business lines fit the park’s sub-zone planning and sector orientation, whether suitable land remains, whether infrastructure (power, water, wastewater treatment) can serve it, and whether the project meets the park’s environmental and investment-rate requirements. A project entirely lawful under investment law can still be refused by a specific park for not fitting that park’s planning — a “right project, wrong place” refusal. The Department of Finance, handling projects outside parks, assesses mainly conditional-sector conditions, investor capacity and status, and dossier completeness — validity: refusals there usually mean “the project/dossier does not yet meet conditions”, fixable by supplementation or project-content adjustment rather than relocation.
The practical consequence is that the two reason groups demand two different reactions: for a park-planning refusal, complaining to demand the “right place” rarely succeeds if the planning truly does not fit — the effective answer is usually another park whose planning fits; for a conditions/dossier refusal, supplementing or complaining precisely against the stated point is the main route. Reading the refusal notice and sorting it into the right group is the skill that decides the entire next step.
Where to complain, and is switching parks feasible
Complaints against a refusal notice follow the Law on Complaints 02/2011/QH13: a first-time complaint to the head of the very authority that issued the notice — the head of the industrial park management board or the Department director — for the authority to reconsider, or the investor may initiate an administrative lawsuit at court against that decision/notice. If the first complaint is unresolved or rejected, the investor complains a second time to the directly superior authority — for provincial-level boards and departments, the Chairperson of the provincial People’s Committee — under the Law on Complaints sequence. A complaint is most effective when it attacks the refusal document’s exact basis with evidence (planning documents showing the business lines fit, infrastructure confirmations from the park’s infrastructure operator), not with general arguments about “investment attraction policy”.
Switching to another industrial park is entirely feasible procedurally: the project files a new dossier with the new park’s management board under that park’s planning and land fund; the old park’s refusal notice is not a “precedent” binding other parks, because each park assesses against its own planning. But the investor must self-answer: was the refusal reason specific to that park (sub-zone planning, no suitable land left) or one that will repeat everywhere (an unmet conditional-sector condition, a weak capability dossier)? For the second group, switching parks without fixing the dossier only buys another refusal notice. Conversely, if the reason is purely park planning, switching parks is the correct answer and much faster than complaining.
Timeframes of each route
The complaint route has statutory marks: under the Law on Complaints 02/2011/QH13, the first-time complaint resolution period is not more than 30 days from acceptance (for complex cases, not more than 45 days); second-time complaints have their own correspondingly longer frame. The investor must add evidence-preparation time before those marks. This article does not assert a specific IRC issuance timeline under Article 47 of Decree 96/2026/ND-CP — that point is pending verification by a practising lawyer — so timeframes here are presented on the two firmly grounded tools: complaint resolution periods under the Law on Complaints, and the new-dossier cycle at another park.
The park-switching route has practical rather than statutory marks: time to re-prepare the dossier to the new park’s requirements (land lease principles with the infrastructure operator, adjusting project contents to fit the new park’s planning) plus one full IRC dossier processing cycle at the new park’s management board. In most planning-refusal cases, the switching route’s total time is shorter than winning a complaint and returning to the very park that refused — a calculation the investor should make before deciding to “fight to the end” at the wrong location.
A park board refusal and a Department refusal differ in root cause: one refuses because the project does not fit the park’s planning, the other because of the project’s/dossier’s conditions. Reading the refusal notice correctly yields the route: broken planning fit means switching parks; broken conditions mean supplementing or complaining on the exact point. Complaint is a tool with clear statutory timeframes under the Law on Complaints — but it is worth using only when the refusal ground is actually wrong, not when the project is simply standing in the wrong park.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the industrial park management board refuses, where can a complaint be filed?
Complain under the Law on Complaints 02/2011/QH13: first time to the head of the industrial park management board — the head of the authority that issued the refusal — for reconsideration; if unresolved or rejected, complain a second time to the Chairperson of the provincial People’s Committee (the board’s directly superior authority), or bring an administrative lawsuit at court. The complaint must rest on the written refusal notice stating its grounds and on evidence rebutting exactly those grounds. (For the IRC authority framework between boards and the Department, see piece FDI-LC-0503; for high-tech park projects, see EXP-0789.)
Are the criteria different from the Department’s?
They differ in assessment focus: an industrial park board assesses the project through the park’s planning — whether business lines fit sub-zone planning and the park’s orientation, land fund, power — water — wastewater infrastructure, and the park’s environmental/investment-rate requirements — so refusal usually means “right project, wrong place”. The Department of Finance assesses out-of-park projects on conditional-sector conditions, investor status/capacity and dossier validity, so refusal usually means “the project/dossier does not yet meet conditions” and is fixable by supplementation or adjustment.
Should the project move to another industrial park?
Yes, and it is usually the right answer when the refusal ground is park planning: file a new dossier with another park’s management board whose sector planning and land fund fit; the old park’s refusal does not bind other parks because each park assesses against its own planning. But if the refusal ground belongs to the project/dossier conditions group (an unmet conditional sector, a weak dossier), that ground will repeat at the new park — fix the dossier before switching, or you only collect another refusal.
How long does it take?
On two different frames: the complaint route has statutory marks — first-time complaint resolution within not more than 30 days from acceptance, or 45 days for complex cases, under the Law on Complaints 02/2011/QH13, plus evidence-preparation time. The park-switching route runs on a practical cycle: re-preparing the dossier to the new park’s requirements plus one full IRC processing cycle at the new park — in planning-refusal cases, this route is usually faster than complaining. This article does not assert an IRC issuance timeline under Article 47 of Decree 96/2026/ND-CP because that point is pending verification by a practising lawyer.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council