Vietnam vs China Import Tariff: Which Has Lower Landed Cost?

Which has the lower import tariff, Vietnam or China?

For most consumer and industrial goods, Vietnam has the lower import tariff into the United States because Vietnamese goods avoid the Section 301 additional duties that apply to Chinese origin, while both currently carry the same Section 122 surcharge. The gap is the Section 301 layer, which ranges from 7.5 percent to 100 percent.

Does the Vietnam vs China import tariff gap justify moving sourcing?

It depends on the SKU. The duty gap only justifies a sourcing move when the Section 301 savings, plus any freight difference, beats the cost of qualifying new suppliers. On a high Section 301 line the case is strong; on a 7.5 percent line it can be marginal.

The Vietnam vs China import tariff comparison comes down to one layer of the duty stack: Section 301. As of May 2026, both Vietnamese and Chinese goods carry the same Section 122 surcharge following the Supreme Court's February 2026 ruling that struck down the IEEPA tariffs, and both pay their normal MFN base rate. The difference is that Chinese origin also carries Section 301 additional tariffs ranging from 7.5 percent to 100 percent, and Vietnamese origin does not. GingerControl built the Product Sandbox so importers can put their actual SKUs on the rows and Vietnam and China on the columns, then see the landed cost gap per product instead of estimating it from a headline rate.

Last updated: May 2026

The duty stack: what actually differs between Vietnam and China

To compare Vietnam vs China import tariffs honestly, you have to compare the full duty stack, not a single number. Here is each layer.

MFN base duty. This is set by the HTS code, not the country, so it is the same whether you source from Vietnam or China. Apparel, footwear, furniture, and electronics each carry their own base rate.

Section 301. This is the decisive layer. Section 301 additional tariffs apply specifically to products of China and currently range from 7.5 percent to 100 percent, with electric vehicles at 100 percent, semiconductors and solar at 50 percent, and most other goods at 7.5 to 25 percent. Vietnamese origin carries no Section 301 duty. These tariffs survived the February 2026 Supreme Court ruling because Section 301 rests on the Trade Act of 1974, separate authority from IEEPA.

Section 122. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the administration imposed a temporary import surcharge under Section 122 on imports from all countries. As of May 2026 this applies to both Vietnam and China, so it is not a differentiator, and it is legally contested and time limited.

Section 232. Steel, aluminum, and copper intensive goods carry Section 232 duties regardless of country, so a steel product faces this layer from either origin.

Duty layer	China origin	Vietnam origin	Differentiator
MFN base duty	Set by HTS code	Set by HTS code	No, identical for the same product
Section 301	7.5 to 100 percent	0 percent	Yes, the decisive gap
Section 122 surcharge	Applies	Applies	No, applies to both as of May 2026
Section 232	Applies to metal-intensive goods	Applies to metal-intensive goods	No, country neutral

Bottom line: In the Vietnam vs China import tariff comparison, the entire gap is Section 301. GingerControl's Product Sandbox isolates that layer per SKU by letting you click any matrix cell to expand the full duty stack, so you see exactly how much of the gap is Section 301 and how much is shared cost.

A worked example: same product, two origins

Numbers make this concrete. Consider a product with a 600,000 dollar annual customs value and an MFN base rate of 4 percent, sourced from a category subject to a 25 percent Section 301 list.

Cost component	From China	From Vietnam
Customs value	600,000	600,000
MFN base duty at 4 percent	24,000	24,000
Section 301 at 25 percent	150,000	0
Section 122 surcharge	Applies to both	Applies to both
Duty attributable to origin choice	174,000	24,000

Bottom line: On this SKU the Vietnam vs China import tariff gap is 150,000 dollars per year, entirely Section 301. GingerControl's Product Sandbox produces this comparison automatically for every SKU in a catalog, so a sourcing team sees which products carry a six figure gap and which carry almost none.

The honest qualifier: the gap is only this large on lines with a meaningful Section 301 rate. A Chinese origin product on a 7.5 percent Section 301 list shows a much smaller gap, and a product not on any Section 301 list shows almost none. That is precisely why you model per SKU rather than per country.

Where China can still win

A fair comparison acknowledges that Vietnam does not always come out ahead.

• Products outside Section 301 scope. If a Chinese origin product is not on any Section 301 list, the tariff gap with Vietnam can be close to zero, and China's established supply base may make it the better total cost choice.
• Tariff engineering at the margin. Some Chinese sourced goods qualify for Chapter 99 exclusions. As of January 2026 there were 178 active Section 301 exclusions covering categories such as solar manufacturing equipment, certain machinery components, and medical devices. An excluded line removes the Section 301 layer without moving sourcing at all.
• Unit cost and capacity. Chinese suppliers may quote lower unit prices or hold capacity that a Vietnamese supplier cannot match, and freight lanes differ. Landed cost is product cost plus freight plus duty, not duty alone.

This is why the Vietnam vs China import tariff question is a per SKU modeling problem. GingerControl's Product Sandbox FTA Compare Drawer also quantifies whether a Vietnamese or other alternate origin can claim a preference, and its Valuation Sanity Check cross references declared values against USITC Dataweb Average Unit Value benchmarks, so a sourcing move does not accidentally create a CBP undervaluation flag at the new origin.

GingerControl is AI global trade compliance infrastructure that helps importers, exporters, and customs brokers classify products, model the full tariff stack across sourcing countries, and document the reasoning behind every sourcing decision.

How to run the Vietnam vs China comparison on your own catalog

The process is the same whether you have 20 SKUs or 2,000.

1. Confirm the HTS code for each product. The base rate and Section 301 exposure both depend on getting the classification right.
2. Identify Section 301 exposure. Check whether each Chinese origin product sits on a Section 301 list and at what rate.
3. Build the matrix. Put products on rows, China and Vietnam on columns, and compute the full duty stack per cell.
4. Read the per SKU gap. Sort by the size of the Section 301 driven gap. Large gaps justify a sourcing review; small gaps do not.
5. Document the decision. Keep a timestamped record of the classification, the origin, and the tariff calculation behind each move.

Classification accuracy is the foundation of all of it. GingerControl's HTS Classification Researcher follows GRI logic, surfaces multiple candidate codes, and asks clarifying questions before assigning a classification, producing audit ready research that supports a licensed customs broker's final decision rather than replacing it. Pending Tariff Badges then surface those classified products directly into the Product Sandbox matrix for the Vietnam vs China comparison.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Vietnam vs China import tariff difference just Section 301?

For most products, yes. The MFN base rate is set by the HTS code and is identical regardless of origin, and as of May 2026 the Section 122 surcharge applies to both countries, so the gap is the Section 301 layer that applies only to Chinese origin. GingerControl's Product Sandbox isolates this by letting you click any cell to expand the full duty stack and see the Section 301 component on its own.

How much can moving sourcing from China to Vietnam save on import duty?

On a product subject to a 25 percent Section 301 list with 600,000 dollars of annual value, avoiding Section 301 saves 150,000 dollars a year, while a 7.5 percent line saves far less and a non-listed product saves almost nothing. GingerControl's Product Sandbox calculates this gap per SKU across a full catalog, so you see which products actually justify a sourcing move.

Do Vietnamese goods avoid all the tariffs that hit Chinese goods?

No. Vietnamese goods avoid Section 301, but as of May 2026 they still carry the Section 122 surcharge and the same MFN base rate, and Section 232 duties apply to metal intensive goods from any country. GingerControl's Product Sandbox shows every layer of the duty stack for each origin, so the Vietnam advantage is quantified accurately rather than overstated.

Can a Section 301 exclusion change the Vietnam vs China import tariff comparison?

Yes. As of January 2026 there were 178 active Section 301 exclusions, and an excluded Chinese origin product carries no Section 301 duty, which can erase most of the Vietnam advantage. GingerControl's Product Sandbox lets you model the Chinese duty stack with and without an exclusion so the comparison reflects the actual Chapter 99 treatment of each line.

How do I keep a sourcing change from triggering a CBP valuation challenge?

Declared values at a new origin should still align with USITC Dataweb Average Unit Value benchmarks, because CBP is expanding AI driven undervaluation enforcement. GingerControl's Product Sandbox runs a Valuation Sanity Check that flags when a declared value drifts below the AUV benchmark for the same HTS line by an unsafe margin, before a CBP challenge.

Does GingerControl decide where I should source from?

GingerControl's Product Sandbox quantifies the Vietnam vs China import tariff gap per SKU and writes every committed selection to a timestamped, CF 28 ready Selection History, giving sourcing and compliance teams a documented basis for the decision. It supports professional judgment with audit ready modeling and does not replace a licensed customs broker's classification or a company's commercial sourcing choice.

Compare Vietnam and China across your real catalog

A headline tariff rate will not tell you whether moving a SKU from China to Vietnam pays off. The duty gap is Section 301, and Section 301 varies from 7.5 percent to 100 percent by product. GingerControl's Product Sandbox puts your SKUs on the rows and your sourcing countries on the columns, then highlights the lowest landed cost cell with the full duty stack visible. Open the Product Sandbox and run the Vietnam vs China comparison on your own products.

GingerControl is not just a tool. We work with importers and trade compliance teams on process consulting, digital transformation strategy, and end to end custom system development. Talk to our team.

References

[REF 1] USTR Section 301 tariff actions Data cited: Section 301 additional tariffs apply to products of China and range from 7.5 percent to 100 percent; 178 active exclusions as of January 2026 Source: Section 301 Investigations and Tariff Actions, USTR Published: Accessed May 2026

[REF 2] U.S. Supreme Court ruling on IEEPA tariffs Data cited: February 20, 2026 ruling that IEEPA tariffs were unlawful; Section 301 unaffected because it rests on the Trade Act of 1974 Source: Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs, Holland and Knight Published: February 2026

[REF 3] Section 122 temporary import surcharge Data cited: Section 122 surcharge applied to imports from all countries following the IEEPA ruling, capped at 15 percent for up to 150 days Source: Supreme Court Reins in IEEPA Tariff Authority, BDO Published: February 2026

[REF 4] USITC Harmonized Tariff Schedule Data cited: MFN base duty rates are set by HTS code regardless of country of origin Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule, hts.usitc.gov Published: Accessed May 2026

[REF 5] U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforcement posture Data cited: CBP expansion of AI driven undervaluation enforcement Source: 2026 Trade Enforcement, OFW Law Published: 2026