In January 2026, the Ministry of Finance and the State Taxation Administration issued the Announcement of the Ministry of Finance and the State Taxation Administration on VAT and Consumption Tax Policies for Export Operations (Announcement No. 11 of the Ministry of Finance and the State Taxation Administration [2026]), which largely continues the existing export tax rebate (exemption) system. It replaces the Notice of the Ministry of Finance and the State Taxation Administration on VAT and Consumption Tax Policies for Exported Goods and Services (Cai Shui [2012] No. 39, now invalid) and Annex 4 of the “Notice on Comprehensively Promoting the Pilot Program for Replacing Business Tax with Value-Added Tax” (Cai Shui [2016] No. 36), “Provisions on the Application of Zero-Rated VAT and Exemption Policies for Cross-Border Taxable Activities” (Annex 4 now invalid). It unified the regulation of exported goods, cross-border sales of services, and intangible assets under export operations, significantly enhancing the systematic nature, clarity, and applicability of export tax rebate (exemption) policies. To implement Announcement No. 11 and strengthen export business management, the State Taxation Administration subsequently issued the Announcement of the State Taxation Administration on the Administration Measures for VAT and Consumption Tax Refunds (Exemptions) for Exported Goods and Services (State Taxation Administration Announcement No. 5 of 2026). Announcement No. 5 of 2026 generally retains the existing export tax rebate (exemption) management provisions, consolidates management documents issued at different times, and addresses prominent practical issues and taxpayer concerns. It establishes unified and standardized management measures, providing clear, explicit, and actionable guidance for taxpayers handling export tax rebate (exemption) procedures. In light of this, Huashui plans to adopt a practical approach, incorporating changes in the new policy. Through a series of articles focusing on key export business points and common issues, we will provide detailed analysis on various matters for the foreign trade industry, including documentation filing, disguised self-operations and genuine agency arrangements, input invoices, and foreign exchange receipts, for taxpayers' reference. This article aims to trace the origins of regulations concerning documentation filing and analyze the policy changes and their practical implications.

I. Historical Origins and Evolution of the Document Filing System

In 1985, the State Council issued the “State Council Notice Approving the Ministry of Finance's Report on Levying and Refunding Product Tax or Value-Added Tax on Imported and Exported Products” (State Council Document [1985] No. 43, now expired), marking the formal establishment of China's import and export taxation system. In 1994, China undertook fiscal and tax system reforms, shifting the burden of export tax rebates to the central government. Concurrently, the State Administration of Taxation issued the “Notice of the State Administration of Taxation on Printing and Distributing the ‘Administrative Measures for Export Goods Tax Rebate (Exemption)’” (Guoshuifa [1994] No. 031, now invalidated), continuing the practice of tax rebates for export products. This also signified the full integration of China's export tax rebate (exemption) system with the new tax regime and its progression toward standardization. The implementation of the export tax rebate (exemption) system played a significant role in enhancing the international competitiveness of China's export products and promoting sustained, rapid, and healthy economic development. However, the system at that time faced numerous issues, including an unreasonable burden mechanism and a lack of stable funding sources for export tax rebates, placing considerable pressure on the central government's finances. Consequently, in 2003, China initiated reforms to its export tax rebate (exemption) system. The State Council issued the “Decision of the State Council on Reforming the Current Export Tax Rebate Mechanism” (Guofa [2003] No. 24), establishing a new “central government + local government” co-burden mechanism for export tax rebates. This resolved the issue of tax rebate arrears and alleviated pressure on the central government's fiscal burden. However, oversight of tax rebates and exemptions remained weak at the time, confined to formal document reviews of customs declarations, foreign exchange verification forms, and VAT invoices. Without verifying supporting documents generated from contract flows and transportation flows, tax authorities struggled to conduct substantive supervision of export operations' authenticity. During 2004-2005, China's export volume grew rapidly, fueling rampant tax fraud activities. Several major tax fraud cases erupted, including the notorious Xia Du Special Case.

In light of this, to strengthen substantive oversight of export operations and prevent illegal activities involving fraudulent claims for export tax rebates, on December 13, 2005, the State Administration of Taxation issued the “Notice on Implementing the Documentation Filing Management System for Export Goods Tax Rebates (Exemptions) (Interim)” (Guoshuifa [2005] No. 199, now expired). This notice established the documentation filing management system for export tax rebates (exemptions), aiming to transition from “formal review” to “substantive verification” by examining contract flows and goods flows. Thus, the documentation filing management system was established. Purchase and sales contracts, export goods detail lists, loading lists, and transport documents, together with declaration materials, became complementary evidence for enterprises to prove the authenticity of their export operations to tax authorities. They also served as crucial leads for tax authorities to prevent and combat export tax fraud.

As the documentation names specified in Document No. 199 of the State Administration of Taxation (SAT) [2005] did not fully align with practical requirements, the SAT issued the Supplementary Notice on Implementing the Documentation Filing Management System for Export Goods Tax Rebate (Exemption) (SAT Letter [2006] No. 904, now expired) on September 30, 2006. . This notice stipulated that export enterprises genuinely unable to provide filing documents consistent with Document No. 199 could submit documents with similar content or function as filing documents. It also required export enterprises to submit written justification and provide samples of the relevant documents to the competent tax authority before their first filing.

In 2008, the financial crisis erupted. To address the severe challenges of the international financial crisis, promote foreign trade development, and optimize tax refund services, on March 6, 2009, the State Administration of Taxation issued the “Notice of the State Administration of Taxation on Simplifying the Filing Management System for Export Goods Tax Refund (Exemption) Documents” (Guoshuilian [2009] No. 104, now expired). This notice simplified document filing procedures, eliminating the requirement for unified numbering and binding of filing documents into volumes.

In 2009, the VAT system transitioned from a “production-based VAT” to a “consumption-based VAT,” allowing input tax credits for fixed assets. Coupled with the emergence and development of new business models such as overseas contracting projects and cross-border e-commerce, Document Cai Shui [2012] No. 39 was introduced. Concurrently, the State Administration of Taxation supplemented it with the “Administrative Measures for Value-Added Tax and Consumption Tax on Exported Goods and Services” (State Administration of Taxation Announcement No. 24 of 2012, now expired). This formed a comprehensive “policy + management” system for export tax rebates (exemptions). The documentation filing system was stipulated in Article 8(4) of Announcement No. 24 of 2012: " Relevant Filed Documents.“ This provision removed the requirement in Document No. 904 [2006] of the State Taxation Administration that ”export enterprises shall submit written justification and provide samples of relevant documents to the competent tax authority before filing documents for the first time." Article 13 on violation handling also stipulated penalties for failing to file documents as required and for providing false filed documents. Article 7 of Document Cai Shui [2012] No. 39 further stipulates that “export goods for which enterprises provide false filing documents shall be subject to the VAT taxation policy.”

Following the issuance of Announcement No. 24 of 2012, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange reformed the foreign exchange verification system for goods trade, abolishing the export receipts verification form used for tax refund declarations. Concurrently, tax authorities and enterprises nationwide reported various implementation issues through different channels. In response, the State Administration of Taxation refined Announcement No. 24 [2012] by issuing the “Announcement of the State Administration of Taxation on Issues Concerning the <Administrative Measures for Value-Added Tax and Consumption Tax on Exported Goods and Services>” (State Administration of Taxation Announcement No. 12 [2013], now expired). This document: On the other hand, it added the legal consequences for forging filing documents.

In 2022, to alleviate difficulties for enterprises and promote stable foreign trade development, the State Taxation Administration issued the “Announcement of the State Taxation Administration on Further Facilitating Export Tax Rebate Procedures and Promoting Stable Foreign Trade Development” (State Taxation Administration Announcement No. 9 of 2022, partially expired). This announcement optimized the document filing system and actively promoted the electronic filing of export tax rebate (exemption) documents.

II. Changes to the Documentation Filing System

(I) Changes in Filing Requirements

Compared to previous regulations, the documentation filing system has undergone two specific modifications:

First, the retention period for filed documents has been extended from five to ten years, aligning with Article 29 of the Implementation Rules of the Tax Collection and Administration Law, which stipulates that “export certificates and other relevant tax-related materials shall be retained for ten years.” This implies that, on one hand, enterprises bear responsibility for the legality, authenticity, and completeness of filing documents classified as tax-related materials. On the other hand, tax authorities may conduct retrospective audits of export transaction authenticity up to 10 years prior, imposing higher and longer-term compliance requirements on the integrity, standardization, and retention management of filing documents.

We recommend that enterprises seize this opportunity to enhance their export tax rebate (exemption) documentation filing management systems. Standardize the collection, review, and archiving processes for contracts, transport documents, customs declarations, and other substitute materials. Implement electronic and routine retention management to ensure every export transaction record is verifiable, auditable, and traceable, thereby continuously improving compliance across the entire export process.

Second, the scope of document filing management has shifted from a negative exclusion approach to a positive enumeration approach. Previously, regulations stated, “Zero-rated cross-border taxable activities are not subject to filing document management.” The current regulation states: “Exported goods and overseas repair and maintenance services shall be subject to documentation filing management.” This aligns with the VAT Law and its implementing regulations, which categorize “processing, repair, and maintenance services” under the broader scope of “services,” thereby clarifying the legal concept. This also signifies that the scope of documentation filing management remains stable and consistent with existing policy interpretations. The adjustment primarily involves refining the regulatory language—moving away from negative exclusion and instead explicitly listing the management targets through positive enumeration.

(II) Changes in Legal Consequences for Non-Compliant Documentation Filing

Overall, Announcement No. 11 [2026] of the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation incorporates relevant provisions from Announcement No. 12 [2013], consolidating clauses regarding the legal consequences of non-compliant documentation filing from Announcement No. 39 [2012] and Announcement No. 12 [2013]. By adjusting the placement and wording of articles, it resolves practical disputes and elevates the legislative level. Specifically:

First, it clarifies the distinct legal consequences for different types of non-compliant documentation filing. For export transactions where documentation filing is not conducted as required, the VAT exemption policy applies. For export transactions involving the provision of forged or falsified filing documentation, the VAT taxation policy applies. Previously, some taxpayers argued that Circular No. 39 [2012] of the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation did not specify the legal consequences of failing to file documents as required for tax exemption purposes. They contended that the provisions of Announcement No. 12 [2013] violated higher-level laws and infringed upon taxpayer rights, leading to a legality review of Article 5(8) of Announcement No. 12 [2013]. Announcement No. 11 of 2026 clarifies this matter, resolving the previous dispute.

Second, the provision requiring “negative declaration to offset the original declaration” has been removed. Previously, some taxpayers interpreted Article 5(8) of Announcement No. 12 [2013] as meaning that “for tax refunds (exemptions) already declared, negative declarations should be used to offset the original declaration” referred to using the next period's tax refund declaration to offset previously refunded taxes. They argued this was not a tax payment act, had no filing deadline, and that tax authorities' use of this provision to “recover taxes already refunded to taxpayers” constituted an unlawful tax collection act exceeding their authority. In response, Announcement No. 11 of 2026 by the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation addressed this by removing the aforementioned wording.

Third, the placement of the clause “Where export transactions are verified as tax evasion or fraud, they shall be handled according to relevant provisions on tax evasion and fraud” has been adjusted, with clarification that “Where circumstances meet VAT taxation policy requirements, VAT taxation policies shall also apply as stipulated.” Previously, this clause stated: “Goods for which taxpayers provide false filing documents shall be subject to VAT taxation policies. Where verified as tax evasion or fraud, they shall be handled according to relevant provisions.” Some taxpayers objected to this provision, arguing that its core applicability hinged on “being classified as tax evasion or fraud.” They contended that without intent or acts of tax evasion or fraud, and with goods genuinely exported, they legally held substantive export tax rebate rights. Therefore, they believed tax authorities applying the taxation policy to their export operations under this clause constituted an error in legal application. Announcement No. 11 of 2026 explicitly stipulates that “the VAT taxation policy applies to goods with forged or falsified filing documents,” while separately providing that for cases meeting the conditions for the VAT taxation policy, the policy shall apply as prescribed. For export transactions confirmed to involve tax evasion or fraud, they shall be handled according to tax evasion regulations, addressing practical disputes.

Furthermore, Announcement No. 5 of 2026 carries forward the administrative penalty provisions for non-compliant filing documents from Announcement No. 24 of 2012. Failure to bind, store, or preserve filing documents as required shall be penalized under Article 60 of the Tax Collection and Administration Law, which states: "Where a taxpayer commits any of the following acts, the tax authority shall order rectification within a time limit and may impose a fine not exceeding 2,000 yuan; where circumstances are serious, a fine of not less than 2,000 yuan but not more than 10,000 yuan shall be imposed.“ For providing forged or false filing documents, penalties shall be imposed in accordance with Article 70 of the Tax Collection and Administration Law, which states: ”Where a taxpayer or withholding agent evades, refuses, or otherwise obstructs an inspection by the tax authorities, the tax authorities shall order rectification and may impose a fine of not more than 10,000 yuan; where circumstances are serious, a fine of not less than 10,000 yuan but not more than 50,000 yuan shall be imposed."

III. Tax Risks and Issues Related to Document Filing

Under the new regulations, the following tax risks and issues concerning document filing are highlighted:

1. Suspension of Export Tax Rebates (Exemptions)

If discrepancies exist between the commodity name, quantity, value, etc., on documents such as bills of lading and the import customs declaration data of the importing country or region, export tax rebates (exemptions) for the relevant export transactions will be temporarily suspended. For cases already processed, tax authorities will temporarily withhold other approved refundable tax amounts from the taxpayer based on the involved refund amount. Only after verifying and resolving discrepancies may tax authorities resume processing export tax refunds/exemptions as required or release the withheld refundable tax amounts.

2. Application of VAT Exemption Policy

Failure to file documents as required under the documentation filing system constitutes a circumstance where taxpayers are not entitled to VAT refunds. Tax authorities will recover any refunds already received and apply the VAT exemption policy. Practice reveals numerous cases where refunds were reclaimed due to non-compliance with documentation filing requirements. For instance, in February 2026, a local tax bureau announced that an import-export trading company failed to file documents as required, resulting in the reclamation of over 8.66 million yuan in previously refunded taxes. Additionally, failure to properly bind, store, or preserve filed documents may subject taxpayers to fines under Article 60 of the Tax Collection and Administration Law.

It is worth noting that taxpayers may be exempt from the documentation filing requirement due to the specific characteristics of the transaction method. However, interpretations of what constitutes “transaction method characteristics” vary in practice. Some argue that trade under FOB terms, where the buyer directly designates the freight forwarding company and the taxpayer cannot obtain the bill of lading, represents a special case of transaction method characteristics. However, counterarguments contend that this transaction model does not entirely preclude taxpayers from obtaining original freight forwarder bills of lading. The “special nature of the transaction method” typically refers to extremely unique delivery methods such as self-pickup or border trade.

3. Application of VAT Taxation Policy

Providing forged or false filing documents also constitutes a circumstance where taxpayers are ineligible for VAT refunds. Tax authorities shall not only recover the refunded tax amounts already received by taxpayers but also apply the VAT taxation policy. Additionally, tax authorities shall impose fines on taxpayers pursuant to Article 70 of the Tax Collection and Administration Law.

It should be noted that if tax authorities deem taxpayers to have provided forged or falsified filing documents, they must present sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. Otherwise, the facts remain unclear and evidence insufficient, necessitating the revocation of any administrative penalty decisions issued by tax authorities.

4. Constituting Tax Fraud

The judicial interpretations on tax-related matters issued by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate in March 2024 introduced significant changes to provisions concerning export tax refund fraud. Specifically, Article 7(5) now includes obtaining transport documents and other export-related certificates through illegal means such as forgery or alteration under the category of “false export declarations or other fraudulent means.” Compared to previous regulations, the scope of documents covered has been significantly expanded. Nevertheless, it must be clarified that merely submitting forged or falsified filing documents does not constitute tax fraud under either tax or criminal law. For tax fraud to be established, beyond providing such documents, the taxpayer must also fabricate export facts when claiming export tax rebates. The authenticity of the goods remains the core criterion for determining whether tax fraud has occurred. Taxpayers found by tax authorities to have committed tax fraud face the risk of having their refunds recovered, being fined one to five times the amount of the fraudulent refund, and having their export tax refund privileges suspended. If the case meets the criteria for criminal investigation, they will also be held criminally liable for the crime of defrauding export tax refunds.

IV. Conclusion

Currently, while China continues to promote the stable and healthy development of its foreign trade sector, tax oversight in this domain is also being progressively strengthened. Although filing documentation constitutes a foundational element of export business management, taxpayers must not underestimate the importance of its standardized administration. While seemingly merely procedural and documentary in nature, filing documentation serves as the core evidence and critical defense mechanism for verifying the authenticity of export transactions and effectively preventing export tax rebate fraud risks. Against the backdrop of new policies extending the retention period for filing documents to 10 years, tightening regulatory standards, and the increasing normalization of post-audit inspections, enterprises should integrate document filing management throughout the entire export process. This integration must cover all stages—from contract signing and goods delivery to logistics transportation and tax refund declarations—ensuring timely collection, standardized retention, and full traceability of documentation. Only by strengthening internal control systems and reinforcing compliance management responsibilities can enterprises effectively guard against compliance risks—such as tax exemption/taxation policy application, administrative penalties, or even tax fraud accusations—arising from missing documents, non-compliant filing, or submission of fraudulent documentation. This approach solidifies the foundation for export tax rebate (exemption) compliance management.