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

Sorotan Terkini

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY