US Names Malaysia in Transshipment Report: What It Means, What It Doesn’t, and What Manufacturers Should Do Now

Executive Summary. The White House Report is not a new tariff and it does not change what you owe or file today. But if your product line touches HS 392690, sits in the Penang-Kulim corridor, or falls into an AD/CVD-covered category, treat this as the signal to build your substantial-transformation file now, before US Customs and Border Protection asks for it under the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA). This is a separate track from Malaysia’s Section 301 forced-labour tariff, already in force at 10% since 24 July 2026 and the two should not be conflated. A manufacturer with clean, contemporaneous documentation has little new to fear here; one without it now has a specific mechanism, and a specific enforcement history, attached to that gap.

On 14 August 2026, the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy (OTMP) published “The Great Transshipment Scam: Rise, Scope, and Costs,” placing Malaysia among more than 40 economies flagged for illegal transshipment risk. Malaysia sits in Tier 2 – “Scale Leaders with Significant Economic Integration with China” – alongside Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, Türkiye and Vietnam. This has generated understandable concern among Malaysian manufacturers and exporters. Before reacting, it’s worth being precise about what this Report is, what it isn’t, and what it actually requires of compliant manufacturers.

This Is Not a New Tariff

This is not a new tariff. It carries no legal force on its own – it’s a policy Report, not a Federal Register notice or a Presidential Proclamation. It doesn’t change Malaysia’s current 10% Section 301 forced-labour tariff, which remains a separate and unrelated instrument (more on that distinction below; in practice, we have seen companies conflate the two).

It’s also worth noting, in fairness, what the Report itself concedes: it explicitly states that the shift in US import sourcing away from China does not by itself prove that all displaced trade was illegally rerouted, and that “the timing, magnitude, and direction” of the trend only “support further investigation” – it is not, on its own terms, a finding of guilt against Malaysia or any Malaysian company.

This Is a Statement of Enforcement Priorities and Malaysia Is Named With Unusual Specificity

Three points every Malaysian manufacturer should register:

1. Malaysia is named as performing a dual role – both a “production-side microhub” (light assembly, finishing, testing, packaging, labelling) and a “logistics-side maritime gateway” (through Port Klang Free Zone specifically) in the Report’s language.

1. A specific Malaysian industrial cluster and product line is called out by name – the Report maps the Penang-Kulim corridor and HS 392690 (plastic articles) directly against US domestic competitors in Akron, Canton and Upstate South Carolina. If your product line sits anywhere near that HS code, or you supply into that cluster, you are now inside the Report’s own worked example.

1. There is precedent for enforcement following through on this exact fact pattern. The Report cites existing antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) circumvention findings against solar cells and modules completed in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. That is not a hypothetical risk – it has already happened in one sector, and the Report is signalling it expects more.

The Mechanism That Actually Bites: EAPA, Not a Tariff Rate

The practical enforcement tool here is the Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA), which lets US Customs and Border Protection investigate specific importers suspected of evading AD/CVD orders through transshipment or origin misdeclaration. This is company-specific, not country-wide – meaning a compliant manufacturer isn’t automatically caught, but a flagged one can face retroactive duty assessment at the original AD/CVD rate (which the Report itself notes can run to 90%, and in categories like quartz surface products, over 300%, once dumping and subsidy margins are combined) – not merely the ordinary tariff differential.

This is layered on top of Executive Order 14411, the Customs Enforcement EO of 3 June 2026, which tightens:

• importer-of-record accountability

• bonding and domestic-asset requirements

• ownership and business-affiliation disclosure

• “good standing” requirements for importers

And it’s backed by the “Detective Border” – an AI system CBP is building that cross-references shipment data, routing histories, ownership relationships and even satellite/computer-vision imagery of production facilities to test substantial-transformation claims (the Report describes 90-day dwell-time thresholds and product-composition matching as specific red-flag indicators).

The combined effect: the era of a certificate of origin being taken at face value is ending. Origin claims will increasingly need to be provable, not just documented.

Two Different US Actions – Don’t Conflate Them

In practice, we have seen companies mix this up with the July 2026 Section 301 forced-labour tariff. They are unrelated:

Manufacturers need both compliance files. They are not interchangeable.

‍

What Manufacturers Should Do Now

1. Build your substantial-transformation file before anyone asks for it. Bill of materials, country of origin for every input, tariff classification shift analysis, value-added calculations, production records. If EAPA scrutiny comes, the company with this file already assembled responds from strength; the one reconstructing it after a CBP information request is on the back foot from day one – EAPA timelines are short.

1. Distinguish MITI/Malaysian origin certification from the US legal test. A Malaysian certificate of origin is not a defence against a US finding that transformation wasn’t “substantial” under US customs case law. The tests are different, and case law-based US standards (which the Report itself criticises as inconsistent) leave room for a company to be technically compliant with Malaysian rules yet still challenged under US ones.

1. If you operate in or through a free zone (PKFZ or others), separate your risk profile. Pure re-export/logistics activity without processing is a different – and higher – risk category than genuine manufacturing with real value-add. Know which one your operation actually is, on paper and in practice.

1. Review Chinese-input dependency, ownership, and affiliate structures. The Customs EO’s ownership/business-affiliation disclosure requirements mean opaque structures are now a liability, not a convenience. This applies even to wholly Malaysian-owned operations with Chinese-sourced components or Chinese joint-venture partners.

1. Check exposure in the specifically named product lines first. Plastics (HS 392690) given the Penang-Kulim callout, and any AD/CVD-covered categories (aluminium, solar, washers, and similar) where circumvention findings already exist regionally.

1. Treat this as a documentation exercise, not a panic. The overwhelming majority of Malaysian manufacturing is genuine, substantial-transformation activity. The risk isn’t to the sector – it’s to the individual company that can’t currently prove what it already knows to be true.

‍

Prof. Dr. Harald Sippel, MBA is an Austrian-qualified attorney (Rechtsanwalt) and Senior Foreign Advisor at Aqran Vijandran in Kuala Lumpur, supporting foreign companies – with particular depth in Europe and Korean client work – on Malaysian matters across all practice areas. His practice includes advising Malaysian manufacturers and exporters on US customs enforcement exposure, including EAPA investigations, substantial-transformation compliance and country-of-origin documentation strategy.

‍

‍

‍

‍