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​ 

August 28, 2024
Attorneys from the aviation team in Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have contributed the Thailand chapter for Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024 from Chambers and Partners. The guide covers the key legal issues affecting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in 37 jurisdictions worldwide. In addition to the Thailand chapter, Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Vietnam chapter to Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024. The Thailand chapter provides in-depth details on the country’s legal regime affecting all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance, including sale and lease agreement terms; taxation; lease registration and enforcement; lease assignment/novation; insurance and reinsurance; debt structuring; securities; liens; and many other matters that have implications for day-to-day operations in the aviation industry. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with expert legal commentary focusing on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across a range of key jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Aviation Finance & Leasing 2024 is available as a PDF through the button below, courtesy of Chambers and Partners. The full guide is accessible for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
April 2, 2024
Aircraft lease agreements are commonly governed by the law of England and Wales, New York, or another common-law jurisdiction. This article examines the challenges of applying these and other foreign laws to an aircraft lease dispute in Thailand. The applicability of foreign law in Thailand is subject to the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481 (1938). Section 8 of the Conflict of Laws Act states, “Whenever the law of a foreign country which is to govern is not proved to the satisfaction of the court, the internal law of Thailand shall apply.” According to this section, the burden of proof is on the party that claims the foreign law. The claiming party must prove to the court the existence of the foreign law and how the law applies. However, in aircraft lease disputes, especially those that involve seizing or repossessing aircraft, generally only Thai law will apply. Seizing or repossessing an aircraft involves Thai government authorities such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) and the Airports of Thailand (AOT), among others, and these authorities will only comply with Thai law. Moreover, foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Thailand. This means that any action to seize or repossess an aircraft in Thailand must be initiated in Thailand and using Thai law. Foreign court judgments, however, can be used as evidence and may be helpful in convincing the CAAT or court that the lessor is entitled to repossess an aircraft, and in proving damages. The Thai laws relevant in a hostile repossession or seizure action include the Air Navigation Act, the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), and the Civil Proceedings Code (CPC). The CCC provides guidelines on contract termination and the rights of parties in lease agreements. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which a lessor can terminate
December 15, 2023
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has published an updated edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand for 2023. This guide outlines the key factors for starting and operating a business in the Thai market. Issues covered include: Investment incentives Financial facilities Exchange controls Import and export regulations Structures for doing business Requirements for the Establishment of a Business Operation of the Business Cessation or Termination of the Business Labor legislation, relations, and supply Tax Immigration requirements This publication is part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series prepared by member firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide. The guides serve as a useful resource for planning international business strategy and researching new markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand is available through the button below.
October 25, 2023
Sale and leaseback structures and pledges of an aircraft are primary tools in Thailand for lenders to secure aircraft financing. However, these prevalent approaches come with certain limitations. Sale and leaseback structures usually require lots of documentation, while the use of pledges requires delivery of the pledged property to the pledgee and the pledged property must always remain in the possession of the pledgee or a third-party custodian as agreed to by the parties, because the pledge will be legally discharged if the pledged property is returned into the possession of the pledgor. Since 2015, there has been another alternative for securing aircraft financing in Thailand. This came with the introduction of the Business Security Act B.E. 2558 (“BSA”). The BSA allows creation of a security interest over movable property (including aircraft) as collateral to secure debt repayment or other obligations without having to deliver the property to the secured party. Therefore, it is now possible for a security interest to be created over an aircraft on a non-possessory basis. To realize this type of security interest, the BSA requires that a business security agreement be made in writing and registered with the Business Security Registration Office. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the security providers still retain the right to transfer or dispose of the secured property. However, the BSA prohibits the security providers from transferring or selling the secured property when there is a cause for enforcement of the secured property and the security receivers have notified the security providers about this cause in writing. According to the BSA, entities that are eligible to be a security holder and take business security as a secured creditor include financial institutions and other persons prescribed in ministerial regulations issued by the Ministry of Commerce or the Ministry of Finance. However,