Customs Post-assessment Dispute Mechanisms: Challenging Official Duty Assessments

June 2, 2023

Customs Post-assessment Dispute Mechanisms: Challenging Official Duty Assessments

Efficiency and predictability in the global supply chain are critical for business operations. Whether involved in manufacturing, distribution, logistics, or even in the provision of services, most business operators rely upon problem-free customs clearance in the countries in which they operate. If customs disputes do arise and are not effectively addressed, they can have a profound impact on operations, delaying delivery, creating potential civil and criminal liabilities, or even resulting in the seizure of imported goods.

Often, importers or their agents can become complacent, particularly where there has been a period of months or even years of customs clearance without encountering any issues. However, disputes can arise, often relating to origin of goods, classification, and duty assessment. When not addressed early in the dispute process or through settlement, a dispute can escalate, leading to issuance of official letters of assessment by customs authorities. Once Thai customs has issued such a formal letter of assessment to an importer, discretion in settlement is gone and only the full value of the duty assessment can be accepted. At this stage, the only legal avenue for challenge is to accept the duty assessment or to litigate. This article addresses post-assessment litigation options to challenge official customs duty assessments.

Customs Board of Appeals

Once an official assessment is made, an importer has the right to seek a formal appeal of the customs assessment with the Customs Board of Appeals or to otherwise make payment of the full assessment within 30 days of the date it received the assessment. Extensions of time are not permitted. With few exceptions, the right to appeal does not allow the importer to defer an assessed duty payment. This means that the importer must post security for the assessed duty at the time of filing the appeal.

This essentially means that an importer has a tight timeframe in which to prepare and file an appeal and security. Since many customs disputes involve complex issues of goods classification, application of rules of origin, and exemptions under free trade agreements, it is imperative the importers and counsel work in advance of formal assessment so that they are prepared to file appeals within the 30 day period.

The Thai Customs Act provides that the Board of Appeals has 180 days to complete the appellate procedure. The Board of Appeals has the opportunity to extend the procedure for up to 90 days, but only if there is necessary cause. Thereafter, if the appellate procedure cannot be completed within the original or extended time period, an importer has the right to consider withdrawing the appeal and filing a lawsuit in the applicable court.

The Board of Appeals and its Appeal Committee have the right to appoint a subcommittee to perform any entrusted duty. The committee or subcommittee can issue a summons to the appellant or request any person to give an oral statement or submit any documentation concerning the appeal. A Customs Board of Appeals ruling is final, made in writing, and submitted to the appellant. If the appellant is dissatisfied with the ruling, it has the right to file a lawsuit in court within thirty days of receiving the ruling.

Filing Claims with the Court

Where there has been an official duty assessment by Thai customs, an importer, if it wishes to bypass the Customs Board of Appeals process, has the right to file a direct claim with the court of jurisdiction for a customs dispute. This is typically the specialized Tax Court. Alternatively, an importer can await the conclusion of the Customs Board of Appeals process before exercising its right to file a claim with the applicable court. This is a decision that each importer needs to consider on its own, but in most cases the initial decision will be to file appeals with the Board of Appeals as a first dispute resolution option, and only if the ruling is unfavorable will a party then consider further filings to the court. This is a decision made on a case-by-case basis and there is no set formula on what strategy to employ, but there is a general understanding that the Board of Appeals has more expertise than the courts, particularly in complex customs disputes.

As is the case for Board of Appeals reviews, a post of security for the assessment is required during the trial court process. Court proceedings will proceed until issuance of the court judgment. There is a further right to consider an appeal to the Supreme Court, which under current rules has the right to exercise its discretion on whether to accept the appeal. If the appeal is not accepted, then the court judgment will be final and no further avenues of challenge will be possible.

Conclusion

Customs clearance and valuation are important parts of the global supply chain. In most cases, goods move freely and without negative effects. However, when customs conflicts do arise, it is critical that importers and their counsel act to assess and advocate in defense of claims. Where necessary, a well-planned and thorough defense, whether through the customs appeal process or through the courts, can reduce or otherwise eliminate assessed customs liabilities. In fact, a favorable ruling may even set a standard that reduces the likelihood of similar disputes in the future.

Related Professionals

Michael Ramirez

Counsel

Thailand

+66 2056 5794

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

April 23, 2024

Civil Litigation in Thailand

Litigation is usually the last resort in resolving disputes. Most parties to a dispute try to avoid litigation altogether, fearing that seeking recourse with the courts or arbitration will lead to a disruption in commercial relationships, result in increased legal expenses, and generally lengthen the period in which the dispute remains unresolved. While some of these concerns may indeed be legitimate, sometimes litigation is the only means for a party to obtain relief. For parties contemplating such recourse, it is reassuring to know that the Thai court system is generally an accessible, unbiased, and balanced vehicle for the resolution of disputes. Civil Litigation in Thailand aims to introduce some of the fundamentals of Thai civil court procedures and practices. This brief guide covers the main issues concerning civil litigation in Thailand as either a plaintiff or a defendant. The full guide is available through the button below.

April 18, 2024

In-Court Arbitration in Thailand: A Tool Worth Exploring?

In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by

April 17, 2024

Navigating Document Formality Challenges in Vietnam

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding

April 11, 2024

Litigation Funding in Thailand

Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any

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

Industries

Practices

June 2, 2023