Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

LEGAL UPDATES – INTERNATIONAL TRADE – LEGALITY OF THE 24% U.S. TARIFF ON MALAYSIAN EXPORTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW

1. Background:

In 3.4.2025, the United States imposed a sweeping 24% ad valorem tariff on virtually all Malaysian exports to the U.S., on top of a new 10% universal baseline import duty. The measure was part of a broader “reciprocal tariff” policy by the U.S. government aimed at countries with significant trade surpluses and alleged high barriers to U.S. goods. Malaysia, with a trade surplus of approximately USD24 billion in 2024, was among the countries targeted.

2. Key Legal Issues:

The central question is whether the U.S.’s unilateral imposition of a 24% country-specific tariff on Malaysia violates its obligations under international trade law, particularly the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

3. WTO Legal Framework

Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994), which governs WTO members:

i. Article I: Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) prohibits discrimination among WTO members. Imposing a higher tariff solely on Malaysian goods contravenes this obligation.

ii. Article II: Tariff Bindings requires members to maintain tariffs within bound rates agreed in their WTO schedules. A sudden 24% increase far exceeds U.S. bound rates and breaches this provision.

4. Possible U.S. Justification

  • Article XX (General Exceptions) – The U.S. could argue that the tariffs are necessary to protect public morals or secure compliance with its laws. However, WTO panels have previously rejected similar arguments, such as in the U.S.–China tariff dispute (DS543), where the U.S. failed to prove that such unilateral tariffs were justified.
  • Article XXI (Security Exception) – The U.S. might attempt to defend the tariff under national security grounds. Yet, WTO precedent (e.g., Russia – Traffic in Transit) clarified that Article XXI cannot be self-judging and must involve a genuine emergency in international relations. There is no such emergency between the U.S. and Malaysia.

5. Likely WTO Inconsistency

Based on WTO jurisprudence, the 24% tariff on Malaysian goods is likely:

  • A violation of MFN treatment under Article I
  • A breach of U.S. tariff binding commitments under Article II
  • Not justifiable under Article XX or XXI

6. Malaysia Legal Options:

  • WTO Dispute Settlement: Malaysia may initiate a case against the U.S. for breach of WTO rules. Given the strong legal merit, Malaysia would likely win. However, enforcement may be stalled due to the current paralysis of the WTO Appellate Body.
  • Diplomatic Engagement: Malaysia has already indicated it will pursue discussions under the U.S.-Malaysia Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) to seek a resolution.
  • Multilateral Pressure: Malaysia can align with other affected countries (e.g., Vietnam, Thailand, EU) to collectively challenge the measure, adding diplomatic and legal weight.
  • Retaliatory Measures: Although currently ruled out, Malaysia could consider retaliatory tariffs if authorized by the WTO following a successful ruling.

7. Conclusion:

The 24% U.S. tariff on Malaysian exports appears legally indefensible under WTO law. Malaysia has strong grounds to challenge it through dispute settlement, though practical remedies may be delayed. In the interim, Malaysia is wisely pursuing diplomatic avenues while preserving its legal rights under the multilateral trading system.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN