Cross-border e-commerce is reshaping the way international trade operates while exposing significant gaps in traditional customs management. As the flow of goods, payments, and data is no longer tied to a single party, policymakers are increasingly confronted with the challenge of redefining the boundaries of responsibility among participants in the digital commerce ecosystem.
Improvements in customs efficiency are evident more than 12 years after the implementation of the Law on Customs 2014. According to the Department of Customs, the physical inspection rate for red-channel customs declarations has fallen sharply, from 9.68 per cent in 2014 to an estimated 2.65 per cent in 2025, even as the total number of customs declarations has increased by 67 per cent.
Behind these achievements, however, lies a growing contradiction. The rapid evolution of modern commerce is rendering the existing legal framework increasingly outdated. At the heart of the issue is the widening gap between traditional regulatory thinking and the realities of today’s trading environment. While the Law on Customs 2014 was designed around document-based controls and the movement of physical goods, the rise of cross-border e-commerce has fundamentally transformed import and export operations. As a result, a regulatory model centered on border inspections and manual paperwork is exhibiting clear limitations.
Compliance costs weigh on platforms
Digital transformation in customs administration has entered a new phase, where the focus extends beyond adopting new technologies to fundamentally restructuring the regulatory framework. In this transition, clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of participants in the digital commerce ecosystem has become essential to ensuring effective policymaking.
In practice, the business community does not oppose greater automation and digitalization of customs procedures. On the contrary, businesses generally view these changes as necessary to improve administrative efficiency and reduce transaction costs. Their primary concern lies in specific policy proposals, including one that would classify e-commerce platform operators as customs declarants.
The first issue stems from a mismatch in legal principles. Under e-commerce regulations, online platforms serve as technology intermediaries, connecting buyers and sellers without acting as transaction parties or legal representatives. The new draft Law on Customs, however, appears to assign them responsibilities comparable to those of parties directly involved in commercial transactions. This discrepancy widens the gap between legal obligations and actual control over transactions, inevitably increasing compliance costs.
Ms. Nguyen Thi Hong Van, representing Bay Global Strategies, said requiring e-commerce platforms to directly file customs declarations would fundamentally alter their operating models. To comply, platforms would need to develop entirely new capabilities, including integrating their systems with government agencies, establishing customs declaration processes, and collecting and standardizing data for every individual order. These functions fall well outside the original design of marketplace platforms and would require significant investments in both technology and personnel.
Beyond direct costs, such changes could also disrupt an ecosystem that has already evolved over time. In practice, customs brokers and logistics providers currently perform specialized intermediary functions that help streamline customs clearance. Transferring declaration responsibilities to e-commerce platforms would not only duplicate existing functions but could also reduce the overall efficiency of supply chains.
Misplaced responsibility
The more fundamental issue is not simply who files customs declarations, but how responsibility is allocated throughout the transaction chain. Assigning declaration obligations to platforms risks blurring the distinction between an intermediary and an importer, creating significant legal uncertainty. If regulatory risks arise, the key question becomes which party should ultimately bear responsibility for tax obligations and regulatory compliance.
Business representatives argue that the distinction between customs declarants and importers should be preserved. If platforms are involved in customs declarations, their role should be limited to providing technical support or facilitating data transmission. Buyers, as the ultimate beneficiaries of imported goods, should remain the parties ultimately responsible for tax liabilities and compliance with sector-specific regulations.
“If the distinction between customs declarants and importers is not clearly established, the policy could shift legal risks away from the party that controls the goods to an entity that merely facilitates data exchange,” Ms. Van emphasized. “In that case, platforms would not only be responsible for filing declarations but could also become exposed to the entire chain of legal responsibilities relating to transportation, documentation, and compliance for each shipment.”
Under customs regulations, customs declarants are legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of declared information; an obligation that presupposes the ability to verify and control that information. However, e-commerce platforms do not directly participate in the physical supply chain. They neither manufacture, warehouse, nor transport goods, nor do they independently possess critical information such as product specifications, origin, or customs valuation.
In cross-border e-commerce, where transactions involve numerous sellers, diverse product categories, and constantly changing information, much of the data used for customs declarations originates from sellers. Platforms generally lack both the authority and the practical means to independently verify that information. Requiring them to assume legal responsibility for data they cannot control therefore creates unavoidable compliance risks.
“When companies do not have complete information about the goods, they cannot realistically verify or assume responsibility for customs declarations,” said Ms. Le Thi Xuan Hue, Deputy Managing Director of BowerGroupAsia. “That effectively places significant legal risks on platforms that they are unable to control.” This reflects a clear policy design mismatch, she continued, where legal obligations exceed an entity’s actual ability to exercise control.
That [a lack of information] effectively places significant legal risks on platforms that they are unable to control.
The central policy challenge is therefore no longer whether regulation is necessary, but how to design a regulatory framework sophisticated enough to manage risks without undermining market development. Because cross-border e-commerce operates through data-driven networks, regulations must accurately reflect the decentralized nature of platform business models, where information, payments, and goods move separately through multiple intermediaries. Ignoring these characteristics and treating all participants as though they perform identical roles risks creating an imbalanced allocation of responsibilities, imposing disproportionate compliance costs, and weakening the competitiveness of platform-based business models.
Finding the right balance
The policy debate should therefore move beyond simply expanding or reducing regulatory oversight. Rather, it should begin by identifying which participants actually possess the relevant information throughout the transaction chain. Only by assigning obligations to those with both access to data and the ability to exercise meaningful control can regulations achieve both fairness and effectiveness.
Dr. Nguyen Minh Thao, Deputy Head of the Department of Business Development and Business Environment at the National Institute for Economics and Finance under the Ministry of Finance, said regulations built on untested assumptions about businesses’ implementation capacity could create substantial operational burdens, particularly given the high volume, diversity, and frequency of cross-border e-commerce transactions. Effective regulatory oversight, she emphasized, does not increase in proportion to greater government intervention, but depends on whether supervisory mechanisms accurately reflect market realities.
However, Mr. Nguyen Thanh Hung, Deputy Director of the Department of Customs, noted that this regulatory approach has already been adopted by major economies including China, Japan, and the EU. When platforms control data flows, payment flows, and much of the transaction information, continuing to treat them as parties entirely outside the scope of legal obligations is increasingly unrealistic.
From this perspective, the nature of e-commerce platforms needs to be reconsidered. Rather than viewing them solely as neutral intermediaries, policymakers are increasingly embracing the concept of shared responsibility, under which legal obligations arise not only from physical possession of goods but also from control over information and coordination of transactions. Requiring platforms to be involved in customs declarations is therefore not simply an additional administrative procedure but a broader effort to realign legal responsibility with the realities of the digital economy.
Practical experience also suggests that this approach has merit, particularly as new risks continue to emerge. In a decentralized trading environment, platforms cannot claim to have no knowledge of transaction activities. If logistics networks are exploited to transport prohibited goods such as narcotics, platforms cannot reasonably be considered entirely detached from the resulting risks. In such cases, Mr. Hung emphasized, the implications extend beyond tax evasion to broader non-traditional security concerns, making customs regulation an issue that reaches well beyond economic management.
Even so, he acknowledged that the business community’s initial concerns are understandable. Any policy change that disrupts established operating practices is likely to create short-term resistance. Over the longer term, however, the benefits of a more transparent and risk-based customs system are expected to outweigh the initial costs of adaptation. Ultimately, the objective is not simply to maximize convenience, but to establish a regulatory framework that is aligned with the evolving realities of the digital economy.
Google translate