You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

April 5, 2013

Customs Arbitration for Disputes on Security Amount

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

When importers bring products into Thailand, the goods need to pass through customs formalities, during which officials will inspect the products to assess duties. Duties are determined based on the real market value of the product and all related taxes. This means that the amount of duty can vary in different circumstances, resulting in some importers disagreeing with the amount assessed.

When an importer disagrees with the amount of duty but needs to clear the goods from customs, the importer can post security with the Customs Department. But this does not provide a satisfactory option for many importers because the amount of security is equal to the duty assessed. Importantly, the security kept by the Customs Department will not be released until the amount of duty is settled.

This has been an ongoing problem for importers, who have often perceived the process as being unfairly tilted against them. But a recent notification from the Customs Department grants important new rights to importers who disagree with the amount of security required to clear their goods.

This has been an ongoing problem for importers, who have often perceived the process as being unfairly tilted against them. But a recent notification from the Customs Department grants important new rights to importers who disagree with the amount of security required to clear their goods.

Customs Department Notification 85/2555 is intended to be consistent with obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994 and was issued under Section 3 and Section 12 of the Customs Act of 1926 and the Royal Decree on Rules and Procedures for Good Governance of 2003.

Under the Notification, if an issue arises relating to the amount of duty due to the value of the products, an importer or exporter has two options. First, they can ask the customs officials at the port of importation or exportation to issue a formal letter confirming the amount of security, after which they can submit a petition requesting reconsideration of this amount. In practice, though, importers or exporters will be unlikely to choose this approach, as their goods would then be stuck in the customs process.

Under the second alternative, the importer or exporter can begin by posting the security and clearing the goods through customs. Once this process is complete, if the importer or exporter disagrees with the security amount, they have 30 days, after import or export, to submit a written request to the officials for an official letter detailing the amount of the security. After receiving the letter, they can file a petition to the Customs Department to reconsider it.

In a major change favorable to importers and exporters, the reconsideration of the security amount is not solely decided by the Customs Department as before. Under the new process, the petitioner (the importer or exporter) may appoint two qualified persons as arbitrators.

The Notification sets up an arbitration panel composed of two arbitrators appointed by the Customs Department and another two appointed by the petitioner. The panel has the authority to request any documents from either the importer or exporter or any divisions in the Customs Department, including witnesses.

The decision of the panel is subject to a majority vote. If a decision cannot be made, the panel will select an umpire to determine the matter. The outcome of the decision will be delivered to the port of importation or exportation.

Importantly, the Notification applies only in cases where there is a dispute concerning the amount of duty arising from the value of the products. It does not apply to disputes on duty arising from tariff rates, as Section 12 of the Customs Act addresses only disputes on duty relating to the value of the products.

If the amount of security is small, it is likely that the importer or exporter will choose simply to accept the amount assessed by the customs officials, rather than going to arbitration. From the perspective of importers and exporters, the current barriers to the arbitration process include:

  • Unfamiliarity with the procedures outlined in the notification.
  • Difficulty in selecting qualified arbitrators who have knowledge about the specifications of the products and customs procedures.
  • Cost of appointing an arbitrator.

But the benefit of this new Notification is that it provides a fairer venue in which importers and exporters can have their arguments heard. This is a significant step forward for the Customs Department, as the idea of setting up an arbitration panel is quite forward-thinking, and only a few other countries have similar processes.

This can be seen as one example of the Customs Department’s commitment to alleviating organizational problems. It demonstrates a real attempt to improve management systems in a way that will help solve ongoing problems such as delays, unfair treatment, and corruption.

Undoubtedly, this Notification will be a useful mechanism to help importers and exporters, who will need to keenly monitor its implementation in practice.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 23, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok-based aviation specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This annual guide examines the key legal issues impacting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in nearly 40 jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the Thailand chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Vietnam chapter to this year’s edition. The Thailand chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal framework governing all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance. Some topics covered include: sale and lease agreement terms taxation lease registration and enforcement lease assignment/novation insurance and reinsurance debt structuring securities liens The guide also examines other matters with practical implications for the aviation industry’s day-to-day operations. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
July 23, 2026
Aviation law experts from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Vietnam offices have prepared the Vietnam chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 from Chambers and Partners. Covering nearly 40 jurisdictions worldwide, the guide addresses key legal considerations for aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers. Alongside the Vietnam chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Thailand chapter for this year’s edition. The Vietnam chapter delivers detailed insights into the legal environment affecting aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance. Some of the topics it examines include: sale and lease agreement terms taxation lease registration and enforcement lease assignment/novation insurance and reinsurance debt structuring securities liens The guide also covers other issues influencing the day-to-day activities of aviation industry participants in Vietnam. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative analysis of practical legal matters impacting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across leading jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2026 is available on the Chambers and Partners website.
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create