As the United States officially imposes countervailing duties of up to 46% on certain export products from Vietnam, the Vietnamese logistics sector is facing significant challenges—including rising operational costs, longer shipping times, and the risk of supply chain disruptions.
In response to this situation, the Vietnam Logistics Business Association (VLA) has swiftly established a Taskforce for Rapid Response to Countervailing Duties (VLA-TRT). This taskforce aims to assist member enterprises in promptly and effectively addressing the impacts of these trade measures.
The taskforce comprises representatives from the VLA Executive Board, specialized committees, and key logistics enterprises in Vietnam. Its primary objective is to coordinate, consolidate business feedback, assess the impacts, and propose urgent as well as long-term strategies to the Government to help sustain stable export operations.
In an official document submitted to the Prime Minister, VLA put forward a series of practical recommendations, including:
This is not only a timely effort to respond to global market fluctuations, but also an opportunity for Vietnam's logistics sector to undergo restructuring, enhance internal capabilities, and improve transparency and competitiveness within the international supply chain.
As the “backbone” of international trade, the logistics industry is increasingly affected by geopolitical shifts and evolving global trade policies. The proactive establishment of the rapid response taskforce reflects VLA’s strong commitment to supporting the business community in navigating challenges and seizing new opportunities arising from global trade realignments.
Outside the United States, global demand for Chinese products is hitting new highs. Despite being a major target of U.S. tariffs, China has strengthened its trade relationships across Africa, Southeast Asia, and Europe in 2025. While China cements its role as a global export leader, the U.S. is increasingly shifting its focus toward self-reliance.
The “China +1” strategy, once seen as a temporary plan to diversify production outside of China, has now evolved into a long-term restructuring of global supply chains. Increasingly
Vietnamese food and spice producers are making steady progress in international markets by focusing on “real quality.” By combining authentic local flavors with strict international certifications, they are strengthening their competitiveness and building trust among global buyers.
Recently, Glotrans Vietnam once again affirmed its capability in the field of Project Cargo transportation by successfully completing a special shipment from Shanghai, China to Cat Lai Port, Ho Chi Minh City.
In the joyful spirit of celebrating Vietnamese Women’s Day on October 20th, Glotrans Vietnam organized a warm and intimate ceremony to express appreciation to all female staff across the system. The event was a heartfelt thank-you to the wonderful women – the “flowers” who contribute to the success and unity of the Glotrans family.
Recently, Glotrans Vietnam organized a warm and joyful birthday celebration for employees born in October across all branches and offices nationwide.
Company T (Plaintiff – the Insured) entered into an insurance contract with Company B (Defendant – the Insurer). After the insured event occurred, the Insurer alleged that the Insured had violated its obligation to prevent and mitigate losses. The Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged that such an obligation exists but concluded that the Insured did not breach it.
Under the insurance contract, the premium was to be paid in three installments, and in all three, the insured party was late in payment. When a dispute arose, the insurer (Defendant) argued that the insurance contract had terminated before the insured event occurred due to the late premium payment and therefore refused to make an insurance payout. However, the Arbitral Tribunal held a contrary view.
Company Q (Plaintiff – the Insured) and Company B (Defendant – the Insurer) entered into an insurance contract. After an insured event occurred, the parties could not agree on the value of the loss and therefore conducted an assessment. The unilateral assessment conducted by the Insurer was not accepted, while the independent assessment was only partially recognized.
