Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

Sorotan Terkini

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami