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

October 7, 2021

Importers and Customs Consultation: Addressing Duty Disputes Early and Efficiently

Subscribe to Updates

The fast and efficient movement of goods is a hallmark of the modern global supply chain. In fact, it is often an expectation, with contractual commitments dependent on the timely and problem-free delivery of goods to the destination country. If unexpected costs or unreasonable delays occur, importers can find themselves liable to customers or beneficiaries, resulting in reduction or even elimination of anticipated revenue. One area of particular importance for importers is the customs clearance and assessment process, which is often one of the last but most critical phases of the global supply chain.

Importers, regardless of their experience or sophistication, have a duty to understand and comply with all applicable laws and regulations for the importation and classification of goods sent from other countries. While Thailand, like many countries, is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and is obliged to adhere to WTO guidelines for the valuation and classification of goods. It also has its own regulations, policies, and customs laws that provide a legal framework for customs assessment challenges by importers. Often, importers or their agents can effectively process and clear goods with the assigned customs officials without encountering any issues. However, disputes do inevitably arise, often relating to origin, classification, and duty assessment. If not addressed early, a dispute can escalate, leading to seizure of goods, posts of guarantees, final assessments by customs authorities, and even allegations of civil or criminal wrongdoing. At such an advanced stage, it may be too late to engage in consultation to achieve a dispute settlement.

Instead of risking such a predicament, importers seeking to resolve disputes with customs officials should explore pre-assessment consultation opportunities. At this stage, there remains flexibility in approach and time to consult with customs officials, make submissions, and consider a flexible settlement. If this critical time passes and Thai customs issues an official assessment letter, options for an importer who wishes to challenge customs assessment will be severely limited.

In this first article in a two-part series on customs dispute resolution, we focus on pre-assessment consultation procedures and consider how importers can significantly reduce risks and liabilities by taking proactive steps to resolve any issues.

Letter of Assessment

To better understand the benefits of pre-assessment consultation and to appreciate the opportunity available to importers in disagreement with customs authorities, it is first important to understand the implications of an official letter of assessment. Normally, official letters of assessment are issued well after the period of importation and after Thai customs has conducted an initial audit and made duty or classification assessments. If there is a disagreement about this initial (or preliminary) customs assessment, an importer or its representative may defend its position, accept the preliminary assessment, or otherwise reach a negotiated settlement with customs. If no action is taken or a resolution of the dispute is not possible, Thai customs will issue an official letter of assessment.

Once this official assessment letter is issued, discretion in settlement is gone and only the full value of assessment will be accepted. Consultation opportunities in support of the importer’s arguments are no longer available, and the only remaining recourse is an official challenge with the Customs Board of Appeals or with the Thai courts—and only after the importer posts appropriate security based on the official customs assessment. Furthermore, under Thai law there may even be a risk of criminal claims brought by or through the Department of Special Investigation against the importer and its representatives. This risk is significantly lower if a matter is addressed at the pre-assessment stage.

Pre-assessment Consultation

When a dispute arises with Thai customs, it is critically important that the dispute be addressed early, since this provides time to engage customs officials, educate them on the importer’s position, and provide supporting documentation. It is also the only reasonable opportunity to consider an official negotiated settlement with customs. While the law does not provide a specific timeline for this consultation process, it should begin promptly to ensure that Thai customs is engaged and not moving toward issuance of an official assessment letter. If parties are engaged and are making progress in consultation, issuance of an assessment letter is less likely. However, if the law requires filing of a claim within the applicable prescription period for an offense (e.g., 10 years from the date of importation for matters involving duty declaration), customs officials may have no choice but to move ahead with official assessment in order to preserve its right to claim under Thai law.

Consultations with customs officials usually follow an initial audit by the assigned customs inquiry officer. If there are concerns about qualification for duty benefits under free trade agreements or if customs authorities believe there has been a classification error or under-declaration of duty, customs will advise the importer via official notice, often with a request to appear before customs. This is the beginning of the post-dispute consultation process and is an opportunity for an importer or its representative to explain its position and to otherwise convince the customs authority of why there is no violation of customs laws.

Customs authorities might make specific requests for supporting documentation from an importer. Such documentation, if available, might confirm the customs authority’s position or may serve to support an importer’s defense against customs dispute inquiries. It is important that any request for documentation be carefully considered so the importer can make a measured, but responsive, submission. This can both support the importer’s position and demonstrate good faith to the customs authority. This is an important factor in resolution of a dispute, whether through successful proof of the importer’s defense or through discretionary settlement.

Even if the customs authority has not requested information, it may be in the importer’s best interest to submit clarification of its legal position to the assigned customs inquiry officer. This can be anything from issue-based explanations via a simple letter to more detailed position statements explaining the importer’s legal position on valuation or duty exemptions. The level of complexity usually depends on the particulars of the case and customs’ understanding of the issues in dispute. This might involve a single submission or even multiple ones over the period of consultation, supported by in-person discussions on the issues addressed. Through this approach, carefully prepared, good-faith submissions of legitimate legal positions may lead to customs accepting the importer’s declarations. Sometimes, however, it is simply not possible to obtain customs’ acceptance of the importer’s declarations, in which case a focus on possible discretionary settlement may also be considered.

Settlement     

Customs settlement guidelines issued and updated by the director general of Thai Customs in 2017 permit settlement of active customs disputes. They also provide the customs authority with discretion in determining a negotiated settlement, subject to approval by the responsible customs settlement committee. When a dispute with customs cannot be resolved with measured, good-faith consultations and submissions, settlement may be the last viable option before issuance of a formal customs letter of assessment. Settlement at anything less than the full amount of the customs assessment is simply not possible once the customs authority has issued a letter of assessment. By consideration of settlement options at the consultation stage, it may be possible to avert an unfavorable assessment, resolve a dispute, and avoid costly and uncertain litigation with the Customs Board of Appeals or with the Thai court.

The most effective strategy in negotiation typically involves good-faith consultation and submissions in support of a negotiated settlement. Depending on the specifics of a given dispute, this may involve multiple consultations and submissions over time before arriving at a value approved by both the customs inquiry official and the settlement committee. If approved, the settlement represents a final resolution of the dispute.

Conclusion

The efficient movement of commercial goods is a critical component of the modern supply chain, and millions of goods cross borders every day without issue or dispute. When a dispute does arise, however, it can have a financial knock-on effect on multiple contractual players, leading to uncertainty and potential liabilities. For importers faced with customs disputes it is critically important that they and their representatives promptly and strategically assess their legal position and engage in focused consultation efforts with the relevant customs authorities. Depending on the particular case, consultation may lead to resolution of the dispute entirely or to a negotiated settlement, eliminating the uncertainty and cost of protracted litigation of customs claims.

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

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
July 21, 2026
On July 6, 2026, Myanmar’s Ministry of Finance and Revenue introduced revised procedures governing the importation and exportation of goods and vehicles, replacing the framework that had been in place since 2017. The revised procedures were introduced in Notification No. 115/2026, which establishes updated compliance requirements and penalties for importers and exporters, covering licensing, declarations, product specifications, prior arrival of goods, and imports or exports made without the required licenses or permits. Scope Unlike its predecessor (Notification No. 6/2017), which focused primarily on import-related noncompliance, the new notification regulates both import and export activities and introduces a separate penalty schedule for export violations. Exporters are now required to ensure that their exports comply with the approvals stated in export licenses and permits, match the information declared in export declarations, and are supported by the required licenses, permits, and accompanying documents. Import Compliance and Penalties The new notification imposes several compliance requirements on importers. Importers must ensure that the country of origin, branding, labeling, and other product information are consistent with the relevant import license or permit, import declaration, and the imported goods. For vehicles and machinery, the model year must match the year approved by the Ministry of Commerce. Importers must also ensure that goods are not imported before the issuance or after the expiry of the import license or permit, and that the imported quantity does not exceed the approved amount. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in regulatory action. As for the notification’s revised penalties for noncompliance with import licensing requirements, imports made without the required import license, permit, or import declaration may be subject to fines ranging from one to three times the assessable value (AV) of the goods, depending on the category of goods involved. Certain vehicles and machinery, as well as specific
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