On 16 April 2024, the Trade Remedy Authority (TRA) of the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) received a petition for an antidumping investigation (AD) regarding ceramic and porcelain tiles originating from India. The petitioners include nine companies representing domestic manufacturers. On 18 August 2025, the MOIT issued Decision No. 2333/QD-BCT to officially conduct the antidumping investigation with a case code of AD23. After that, on 25 August 2025, the TRA issued Notice No. 131/TB-PVTM regarding the issuance of a questionnaire for sampling foreign manufacturers/exporters in the AD23 case.

On August 29, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a 7-4 en banc opinion in VOS Selections, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose broad, indefinite tariffs. The case was initially brought in the Court of International Trade (CIT) by private businesses and the US state attorneys general. The President invoked IEEPA on various grounds, including concerns about drug enforcement, border security, and trade deficits. In a May decision granting summary judgment to the VOS Selections plaintiffs, the CIT found that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs at issue, which the US Government appealed.

Until recently, the EU lacked a specific framework governing green claims. A new Directive aiming at “empowering consumers for the green transition” supplements the existing rules on unfair commercial practices to include a new harmonized regime for green claims, applicable from September 2026. Businesses should carefully consider how this new regime will impact their upcoming commercial communications, including voluntary environmental reports and climate targets, to mitigate legal and reputational risks.

In March 2025, the Home Office issued a revised version of its statutory guidance “Transparency in Supply Chains” following the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee’s report. This marks the first full revision of the guidance in nearly a decade. In an article for Compliance & Risk, Jon Tuck and David Yadid examine the current legal framework under the Act, unpack the key changes introduced by the new guidance, and consider their implications for businesses.