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

November 29, 2017

A Step Forward: Thailand Takes Dramatic Steps to Modernize Customs Laws

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Businesses involved with the Thai customs clearance process have been anxiously awaiting changes aimed at improving Thailand’s customs laws, an issue that has long been subject to discussion and sometimes contentious debate. These changes come with the passage of the Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017).

The new Act, effective November 13, 2017, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments, and seeks to address many of its shortcomings. This article highlights some of the most significant revisions to the Customs Act, with specific focus on the Act’s intent and penalty provisions and their effect on possible resolution of customs disputes through settlement.   

Streamlined Customs Appeals

Under the previous Act, the customs appeal process could sometimes take years to resolve, with importers required to post duty guarantees pending appeal and faced with no clear return deadlines. The new Act standardizes procedure and sets clear timelines for post-clearance customs audits and Board of Appeal reviews, and it imposes clear deadlines for the return of duty guarantees placed by companies during the appeals process.

Modification of the Customs Rewards System

The new Act also revises the existing rewards regime dramatically, reducing the incentive and reward amounts provided to whistleblowers and initiating a cap on the amount of rewards. For example, whistleblowers will now only receive a maximum of THB 5 million, regardless of the amount of the fine and/or settlement.

Change in Strict Liability Presumptions – Officers and Directors

Another key change to the Act is an amendment to the intent requirements for claims of customs duty evasion. Under the previous Act, section 27 presumed strict liability for all included criminal customs offenses, even where violations may have been due to error rather than intentional or negligent misconduct. The new Act, while still retaining some limited strict liability presumptions, changes the highly controversial presumption of intent for customs duty evasion claims under section 243, requiring a showing of “willful intent” or “negligence” by persons charged with duty evasion offenses.

In addition, where the charged party is a juristic entity, the new Act changes presumptions of strict liability for company officers, directors, and other authorized persons charged under the new Act. This is an important and welcome change, as it was common under the previous Act to impose charges on company representatives. This had the effect of shifting the burden of proof away from the prosecution and onto the accused to conclusively prove that he or she was not involved in the offense, had not admitted to the offense, or had acted reasonably to prevent the offense.

The new Act’s change to these strict liability presumptions is consistent with recent decisions of the Constitutional Court that have concluded that presumptions of liability for officers, directors and other persons responsible for the operations of a company are unconstitutional.

Classification and Penalties

The new Customs Act also addresses one of the most highly criticized aspects of the previous law: its criminal penalty provisions. This critical change includes reclassification of offenses and revisions to the method for calculating criminal fines.

Previously, most criminal penalties relevant to business operators were prescribed under section 27 of the Customs Act. For example, all customs offenses, including smuggling and attempting to commit a customs offense, were classified together under section 27. This offered little flexibility in punishment and frequently failed to account for the considerable differences in the range of wrongdoing by an offender. The new Act seeks to deal with this classification problem by now having penalties governed by three distinct sections: sections 242, 243, and 244.

The new Act also revises the penalty scheme to distinguish between degrees of customs offenses and prescribes new methods for calculating criminal fines.

Previously, under section 27, penalties were calculated at four times the combined price of goods plus the customs duty, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both. While some discretion existed for claims settled before reaching court, once at the trial court stage the only penalties the court could impose were the fine calculated at four times the price and/or imprisonment. Because these stringent penalties did not distinguish between types of offenses and offered the courts no discretion in calculating fines, penalties were often out of proportion with the alleged wrongdoing. This was also a major factor driving parties to seek settlement opportunities prior to trial even where there may have been little merit to the underlying claims against them.

The new section 243 applies to duty evasion and calculating criminal penalties using only the actual amount of the duty evaded. The penalty multiplier is also limited to a range of one-half to four times the base amount. Penalties can also include imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, instead of or in addition to the fine.

The new Act also introduces different degrees of penalties for different levels of offense. For example, the penalty for smuggling under section 242 prohibits importing or exporting items that have “not duly passed through customs.” The penalty is four times the price of the article including the duty, imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both. In addition, the item shall be forfeited regardless of whether the person is punished. Section 244 prohibits customs evasion (i.e., importing items for the purpose of evading “restrictions or prohibitions with respect to such article”) and imposes a penalty of THB 500,000, imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both. In addition, the court may order the article to be forfeited regardless of whether there is anyone to be punished.

Case Evaluation and Settlement

The amendments to the Thai Customs Act are expected to have a substantial impact on the evaluation of claims and whether to consider settlement. Under the previous Act, defendants faced an inflexible and excessive penalty if convicted for all classifications of offenses under Section 27, with the court’s discretion limited only to the length of prison sentence. This placed strong pressure on parties to consider customs settlement opportunities to avoid trial even where there was a strong defense to the charge.

The provisions under the new Act offer much more flexibility to an accused to carefully evaluate and consider defense and settlement options. First, the classification of the offense is taken into account in calculation of penalties. Second, the calculation method has been substantially changed and is rightfully based upon the amount of under-declaration and not the total value of the goods plus duty. Third, the court will now have the discretion to adjust monetary penalties for conviction on a case by case basis within specific guidelines. These factors will result in lower overall fines for conviction and increased court involvement in the evaluation of penalties. This, in turn, will allow the accused and their counsel the opportunity to more effectively evaluate settlement options versus electing to defend at trial.   

Conclusion

The new Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017) substantially improves the customs clearance process by improving clarity and fairness. This includes an overhaul of the penalty scheme, fundamental change to controversial strict liability presumptions, separate penalties for different types of offenses, and reduced penalties compared to the previous scheme. While there are still opportunities to improve the new Act and some existing challenges remain for companies seeking to ensure customs compliance, the new law goes a long way towards clarifying and correcting many of the shortcomings of its predecessor.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More
June 29, 2026
Thailand’s cabinet has approved the draft Act on Liability for Defective Goods, commonly called Thailand’s “Lemon Law.” The Draft Act is currently pending consideration by Parliament. The draft law aims to strengthen buyers’ position in pursuing cases against sellers. While the Civil and Commercial Code offers provisions governing liability for defective goods, it is difficult in practice for buyers to successfully make a claim against sellers, particularly where defects are latent and not discoverable at the time of sale or delivery. By introducing product-specific rules and clearer remedies, the new law is intended to modernize Thailand’s consumer protection framework and align it more closely with international standards, and to help relieve the buyer’s burden of proof against the seller in product liability cases. If enacted, the draft act will take effect 180 days after publication in the Government Gazette, giving businesses a transition period to assess their compliance obligations. This article provides an overview of the key provisions of the draft act and highlights some practical considerations for businesses operating in Thailand. Scope and Key Definitions The draft act applies to sellers—defined as persons who sell goods in the ordinary course of business—and protects buyers, a term defined broadly to include not just the original purchaser but also transferees and successors in title. This expands the class of people who can bring claims. The law does not apply to used goods, live animals, or goods exempted by future ministerial regulation. It also leaves intact any separate warranties, promises, advertisements, or other guarantees a seller has given; those remain enforceable alongside the new statutory rights. General Liability for Defective Goods Sellers are liable for defects that exist at the time of delivery, regardless of whether the seller knew about them. Liability arises where a defect reduces: The benefit intended under
Read More
June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More