G/C/W/ 786 
G/STR/Q1/VNM/8  
10 November  2020 
(20-8040) Page: 1/3 
Council for Trade in Goods  
Working Party on State Trading Enterprises  Original:  English  
 
  
STATE TRADING  
NOTIFICATION OF VIET NAM IN RESPONSE TO THE UNITED STATES' COUNTER -NOTIFICATION  
OF VIET NAM'S STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE  
UNDERSTANDING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE XVII1 
UNITED STATES  FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS TO VIET NAM 'S REPLIES2 TO FURTHER QUESTIONS 
FROM THE UNITED STATES REGARDING VIET NAM 'S STATE TRADING ENTERPRISES  
The following communication, dated 2 November  2020, is being circulated at the reques t of the 
Delegation of the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
The United States thanks Viet Nam for its replies to our questions and presents the following 
follow -up questions : 
Follow -up Question 1  
In its reply to US Question 1 -2 regarding Vinafood I, Viet Nam stated that Announcement 
No. 78/TB -VPCP (dated 9 March  2009), under which Vinafood I is assigned a special or exclusive 
privilege to export rice to the Iraqi market, "holds no validity during the notification period (2012 -14) 
stated in document G/STR/N/15/VNM of Viet Nam ." With this re ply, Viet Nam appears to be stating 
that the special or exclusive privilege assigned to Vinafood I did apply for earlier periods.  As noted 
in our 2018 counter -notification3 and replies to Viet Nam's responses4, the counter -notification 
covered the entire period of 2006 to 2016.  Therefore, Viet Nam 's reply does not speak to whether 
Vinafood I should have been notified before 2012.  
Given Viet Nam 's apparent acknowledgment that a special or exclus ive privilege did apply to 
Vinafood I before 2012, will Viet Nam be providing a full notification for any of the earlier periods 
for which it has not fulfilled its notification obligation?  
Follow -up Question 2  
Similarly, in its reply to US Question 1 -2 regarding Vinafood II, Viet Nam stated that Announcement 
No. 24/2011/TB -LPQT (dated 1 8 April 2011), under which Vinafood II is assigned a special or 
exclusive privilege to export rice to The Philippines, "holds no validity during the notification period 
(2012 -2014) ." With this reply, Viet Nam appears to be stating that the special or exclusive privilege 
 
1 See G/STR/N/15/VNM and G/STR/N/16/VNM (original notifications of Viet Nam) (dated 15 April 2016); 
G/STR/Q1/VNM/4 - G/C/W/750 ( United States' counter -notification) (dated 9 January 2018); 
G/C/W/755 - G/STR/Q1/VNM/5 (Viet Nam's notification in response to Un ited States' counter -notification) 
(dated 27 August 2018); G/C/W/755/Corr.1 - G/STR/Q1/VNM/5/Corr.1 (corrigendum) (dated 
25 September  2018); G/C/W/760 – G/STR/Q1/VNM/6  (further questions posed by the United States in 
response to Viet Nam's response to the counter -notification from the United States)  (dated 9  October  2018) ; 
and G/C/W/776  - G/STR/Q1/VNM/7 (Viet Nam's responses to further questions posed by the United States in 
response to Viet Nam's response to the counter -notification from the United States (dated 5 March 2020).  
2 G/C/W/776 – G/STR/Q1/VNM/7 (dated 5  March  2020).  
3 G/C/W/750 – G/STR/Q1/VNM/4 (dated 11  January  2018).  
4 G/C/W/760 – G/STR/Q1/VNM/6 (dated 9  October  2018).  G/C/W/ 786 • G/STR/Q1/VNM/8  
- 2 - 
  assigned to Vinafood II did apply for earlier period s. As noted in our 2018 counter -notification and 
replies to Viet Nam 's responses, the counter -notifica tion covered the entire period of 2006 -2016.  
Therefore, Viet Nam 's reply does n ot speak to whether Vinafood II should have been notified before 
2012.  
Given Viet Nam 's apparent acknowledgment that a special or exclusive privilege did apply to 
Vinafood II be fore 2012, will Viet Nam be providing a full notification for any of the earlier periods 
for which it has not fulfilled its notification obligation?  
Follow -up Question 3  
In its reply to US Question 1 -2, Viet Nam did not reply to two of our questions.  There fore, we will 
state our questions again:  
(a) Each entity 's charter states that it may "[e]njoy subsidies, price supports or other state 
preference policies when undertaking duties for the public interest, defense, security, food 
security, natural disaster prevention or supply of products or services according to State price 
policy. "5 For example, in Office of the Government Announcement 5159/VPCP -KTN, the Prime 
Minister stated that "[t]he Southern and Northern Food Companies are required to 
immedi ately develop measures to purchase approximately 400 -500 thousand  tons of rice in 
August  2008."6 In light of these two entities ' apparently exclusive or special rights or 
privileges, could Viet Nam please explain why it does not view these entities as STE s? 
(b) Viet Nam asserts that Office of the Government Announcement 78/TB -VPCP and Office of the 
Government Announcement 5159/VPCP -KTN are not legal normative documents and that they 
have no legal effect in the period of notification.  Is Viet Nam representing t hat orders from 
the Prime Minister do not carry legal authority?7 
Follow -up Question 4  
In its reply to US Question 4 regarding Viet Nam National Coal – Mineral Industries Holding 
Corporation Limited, Viet Nam did not reply to one of our questions.  Therefore, we will state our 
question again:  
• Office of the Government Announcement 346/TB -VPCP clearly states that two 
companies, inclu ding Vinacomin or TKV, are designated by the state as coal 
intermediaries:  
[MOIT] shall direct Electricity Vietnam, PetroVietnam, and other enterprises with 
a need for imported coal to sign contracts with the TKV and Dong Bac General 
Corporations (the two enterprises designated as coal import intermediaries) to 
supply coal in accordance with the law and international customs ; contracts 
should include a guarantee that contracts will be executed, to create conditions 
for these intermediaries to find a stable source of supply with appropriate quality 
and price.8 (emphasis added)  
Viet Nam asserts that this measure is "not a legal normative document to grant exclusive or special 
privileges to TKV to importing or exporting coal ." Again, is Viet Nam representing t hat directives 
from the Deputy Prime Minister do not carry legal authority?  
 
5 Government Decree 12/2014/ND -CP dated 25  February  2014 on the Charter for  the Organization and 
Operations of the Northern Food Corporation; Government Decree 10/2014/ND -CP dated 13  February  2014 on 
the Charter on the Organization and Operations of the Southern Food Corporation.  
6 Office of the Government Announcement 5159/VPCP -KTN on Solutions to promote the purchase and 
consumption of the entire 2008 Summer -Autumn rice harvest in the Mekong Delta, dated 7  August  2008.  
7 The United States notes that Article 4.6 of the Law 80/2015/QH13 on the Promulgation of Legal 
Documents inclu des Prime Ministerial Decisions within Viet Nam's System of Legal Documents.  
8 Paragraph 3, Section 1, Office of the Government Announcement 346/TB -VPCP on the conclusions of 
Deputy Prime Minister Hoang Trung Hai at the meeting on the coal import situation , dated 26  August  2014.  G/C/W/ 786 • G/STR/Q1/VNM/8  
- 3 - 
  Follow -up Question 5  
In its reply to US Question 6 regarding Skypec, Viet Nam stated that, since 2016, "Skypec is no 
longer granted the monopolistic rights to import and export petroleum as fuel for civil aircrafts ." 
With this reply, Viet Nam appears to be confirming that a special or exclusive privilege (i.e., 
monopolistic rights) did apply before then.  Given this confirmation, will Viet Nam be providing a full 
notification for any of the earlier periods for which it has not fulfilled its notification obligation?  
Follow -up Question 6  
In its reply to US Question 4, Viet Nam did not reply to one of our questions.  Therefore, we will state 
our question again:  
• Please clarify the statement that a Prime Ministerial Decision is not a "legal normative 
document ". Is Viet Nam asserting that decisions by the Prime Minister do n ot have legal 
authority?  
Follow -up Question 7  
In US Question 7 regarding General Aviation Import Exp ort Joint Stock Company (Airimex), the 
United States referred to Viet Nam 's revised notification that stated that Airimex "is the exclusive 
importer and distributor of spare parts of airplanes and most of [sic] other equipment in the aviation 
industry ." In its reply, Viet Nam stated that, since 2006, "Airimex has not been granted any exclusive 
or special privileges by the Government in importing and exporting goods ." Please confirm whether 
the earlier exclusive right referenced above continues to apply and,  if not, what legal measure 
changed Airimex 's status or otherwise authorized other enterprises to import these goods.  
Follow -up Question 8  
If, in its replies to these follow -up questions, Viet Nam determines that a new or revised notification 
is necessary, please advise as to when such notification will be provided.  
 
__________