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

August 22, 2014

Customs Settlements: Guidelines for Waiver of Prosecution

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Every year, numerous companies and individuals face criminal prosecution for violating Thai customs law. The penalties include significant fines and even incarceration. This can have a profound effect on both a company and its employees and agents, and even those who may have unintentionally violated customs laws.

In some circumstances, however, reaching a settlement with Thai customs authorities may be a cost-effective solution that provides closure for companies and targeted individuals and also results in a full waiver of liability for wrongdoing. This article explores the customs settlement process and the internal customs guidelines for waiver of prosecution.

The Customs Department has the power to review and investigate all customs transactions it believes may not be in compliance with Thai customs law. The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) has similar authority to conduct customs investigations that fall within its jurisdictional reach.

In cases where the Customs Department concludes through investigation that the applicable customs law has been violated, it has the authority to levy substantial taxes, duties, and fines against an accused company and individuals. The DSI and law enforcement agencies also have the power to recommend criminal prosecution for alleged wrongdoing.

The Customs Department also has specific authority to settle claims by waiver of prosecution. Section 102 of the Customs Act gives the director-general of the department the authority to waive prosecution where an accused consents to settlement by a fine. Such a waiver also acts as an indemnification of the accused against further prosecution for the alleged wrongdoing.

The same provision gives the director-general the authority to prosecute a claim irrespective of the accused party’s willingness to settle if the director-general believes settlement is not proper in the circumstances.

There is an additional authorization step that must be considered internally for settlements and waivers of prosecution at the Customs Department for claims that are of high value and considered “serious.” This includes, but is not limited to, claims of intentional under-declaration of customs duties and related offenses.

Specifically, Section 102 bis of the Customs Act provides that certain delineated offenses with value in excess of THB 400,000 must be brought before a designated Customs Department settlement committee for authorization before settlement and a waiver of prosecution can proceed. The committee consists of representatives of the Customs Department, the Finance Ministry, and the Office of the National Police, all of which have an interest in the decision on settlement and waiver of prosecution and can provide additional oversight of the settlement process.

In recognition of customs claims settlements being a viable solution for those charged, as well as a cost-effective means for the Customs Department to obtain revenue without prosecution, the department issued order No.10/2554, which provides internal guidelines for settling by fine in return for a waiver of prosecution.

Notably, there are various levels of wrongdoing that may determine whether settlement is viable and involves a waiver of criminal prosecution under the applicable guidelines. For example, misstatements as to quality, which do not affect duty, may be settled under the guidelines with a modest fine in most cases.

More serious criminal charges, such as those for intentional under-declaration of customs duties, are considered on a case-by-case basis, typically requiring substantial settlement in return for waiver of prosecution. However, if the alleged wrongdoing involves violations of non-customs laws, such as a case of forgery, then the Customs Department has no authority to waive prosecution.

The foregoing highlights the settlement options that may be available to parties facing criminal customs inquiries. While opportunities exist that could encourage settlement, end ongoing investigations, and waive prosecution, settlement should not be considered lightly. Once made, settlement is irreversible and could have long-standing financial, legal, and practical implications for those concerned.

For example, a settlement may involve admissions on the part of an accused that could affect future business decisions for the company or individuals accused of wrongdoing. Furthermore, there is the prospect, however slight, that a prior settlement could have some effect on future inquiries and investigations.

It is therefore critically important that a company has in place systems and protocols to respond to customs inquiries. Of equal importance, the company and its counsel should review and assess the legal allegations carefully before making the significant decision on whether to settle claims in return for waivers of prosecution.

In many cases, settlement makes legal and financial sense, but in others settlement may not be in the best interests of the accused.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
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
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal. In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out‑of‑court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject‑matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process. Thailand’s arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro‑enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More