Illustration: carpenter in a wood workshop — Author: The open draft, source Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).
A kitchen-cabinet manufacturer in Binh Dinh shipped to France steadily for three years. In year four, the importer broke the news: French customs had refused preferences for two consignments, back-assessed duties and demanded explanations. The goods were the same cabinets, the production process unchanged — the problem lay in five origin mistakes that many furniture exporters make without realising. Since 10 May 2026, the legal yardstick for these mistakes is Circular 14/2026/TT-BCT, which fully replaced Circular 11/2020/TT-BCT.
Mistake 1. Applying origin criteria from “experience” instead of the product-specific rule
Many companies declare origin based on habits accumulated across different FTAs, yet each agreement has its own rulebook. For furniture, Article 7 of Circular 14/2026 requires non-wholly-obtained goods to undergo sufficient working or processing per the product-specific rules in Annex II — looked up by the product’s exact HS code. A kitchen cabinet assembled from sawn timber, plywood, metal hinges and paint: each input group must be classified as originating or non-originating separately, then tested against the finished product’s HS-code criterion. Assuming “made in Vietnam automatically qualifies” is wrong from the ground up.
Mistake 2. Unable to prove input origin when verified
When a verification request arrives under Article 34, the competent authority may inspect the exporter’s books and accounting records. The first question is always: where was the timber bought, with what invoices. Article 31 of Circular 14/2026 mandates keeping records for at least 3 years — timber purchase invoices, import declarations (for imported wood), consumption norms per product code, warehouse issue slips and production logs tied to each export consignment. The common reality: timber bought through middlemen without invoices, so the traceability chain snaps at the very first link. Without provable inputs, every origin document downstream stands on sand.
Mistake 3. Using one origin spreadsheet for both the EU and the UK
This is the post-Brexit era mistake. The EVFTA allows only bilateral cumulation under Article 9 of Circular 14/2026: materials originating in the other Party count, provided processing in the exporting country goes beyond simple operations. UK-origin materials cannot be cumulated for goods shipped to the EU.
Conversely, the UKVFTA permits extended cumulation: Article 3 of its Protocol 1 preserves cumulation of EU-origin materials for goods shipped to the UK. An exporter serving both markets with a single origin spreadsheet will be wrong in one direction or the other — especially for furniture using paints, fittings or chemicals sourced from the UK or the EU. One market, one calculation; never shared.
Mistake 4. Treating the 10% tolerance as a “safe zone”
Article 8 of Circular 14/2026 allows a 10% of ex-works price flexibility for non-originating materials. But Article 8(2) is explicit: this may never exceed the maximum percentage set in Annex II. So if the product-specific rule caps non-originating materials at 40%, the 10% tolerance cannot lift that to 50%. Tolerance only matters for near-miss cases — furniture makers with high import-content ratios (imported timber, imported fittings) who plan their input mix around tolerance as a standing reserve are building in risk.
Mistake 5. Documents over the threshold, off-template, or expired
For consignments over 6,000 EUR shipped to the EU, Vietnamese exporters must still obtain a EUR.1 C/O (Article 19(2)(a)) — because Vietnam has not notified the EU about the approved/registered exporter self-certification mechanism (Article 19(2)(d)). Self-certifying an over-threshold consignment is a formal error that kills the preference instantly. Other faults: statements missing signatures or dates; documents past their 12-month validity (Article 26); and, new from 2026, forgetting the fresh duty to upload self-certification documents to the eCoSys system within 03 working days (Article 25(7)).
Build an internal “control gate” instead of firefighting case by case
All five mistakes share one root: origin documents prepared in isolation from purchasing and production. The fix is an internal “control gate”: the import-export department may issue documents only after the HS code is locked, the Annex II product-specific rule of Circular 14/2026 is checked, the consignment’s origin calculation is complete, and the correct document type is chosen per the 6,000 EUR threshold. Add clear contract clauses with the EU importer on liability when documents fail — negotiating before a dispute erupts is always cheaper.
Frequently asked questions
Can furniture made from imported timber qualify for EVFTA?
Possibly, if it meets the product-specific rule in Annex II of Circular 14/2026/TT-BCT for the correct HS code. “Made in Vietnam” does not automatically mean originating.
Can one origin file serve both EU and UK shipments?
Not advisable. EVFTA cumulation (Article 9 of Circular 14/2026, bilateral Vietnam–EU) and UKVFTA cumulation (Article 3 of its Protocol 1, allowing EU-material cumulation) differ — calculate separately per market.
Does the 10% tolerance apply in all cases?
No. Tolerance may never exceed the maximum set by the product-specific rule (Article 8(2) of Circular 14/2026).
Is there a remedy after preferences are refused?
During verification, the exporter can work with the competent authority to submit supplementary records. Long-term, fix the internal process rather than handling each case ad hoc.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council
