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

March 2, 2020

The Development of Trade Competition Legislation in Thailand

Informed Counsel

The competition law regime in Thailand has recently undergone a number of significant changes and promising developments, starting with the implementation of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (TCA) on October 5, 2017.

In 2018, the Trade Competition Commission (TCC) passed major guidelines that clarified the criteria for considering fundamental offenses under the TCA (i.e., abuse of dominant position, hardcore cartels, non-hardcore cartels, and unfair trade practices), as well as the merger control regime under the TCA.

More promising still, the TCC proved to be a very active organization in 2019, issuing subordinate legislation and actively pursuing enforcement of the TCA. In August 2019, the TCC carried out its first enforcement in respect to three competition cases that were investigated by the previous commission. Summaries of these three precedent cases are provided below.

Abusing a Dominant Position in the Market

The first case, which occurred between October 2011 and July 2012, involved an energy drink manufacturer that had a dominant position in the energy drink market. The manufacturer was alleged to have prohibited its distributors from selling the products of its competitors. The TCC ruled that the energy drink manufacturer committed an offense by abusing its dominance, in contravention of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2542 (1999)—the legislation that the TCA replaced. The TCC imposed aggregate fines of approximately THB 12 million, consisting of separate THB 6 million fines on both the company and the company’s director.

Unfair Trade Practices: Buyers

A case involving two buyers of agricultural products occurred during the enforcement of the 2017 version of the TCA. The TCC ruled that the buyers had engaged in unfair trade practices by threatening other prospective buyers and prohibiting them from purchasing agricultural products from sellers based in the same area as the offenders. The TCC imposed a THB 25,000 fine on the offenders, initially calculated as 10% of the offenders’ total turnover during the year of the offense (the total turnover was THB 500,000) and further reduced by half due to the offenders’ cooperation and in light of it being their first offense.

Unfair Trade Practices: Retail Business Operator

A retail-related case also occurred under the 1999 act. In 2011, a hypermarket operator launched a promotion by which customers could exchange a competitor’s coupon with its own coupon for double the value. The hypermarket operator was found guilty of engaging in unfair trade practices under section 29 of the 1999 act (now section 57  of the TCA) during January, July, and August of 2011. However, the TCC did not impose a criminal fine on the hypermarket operator, as the 1999 act had already been repealed when the TCC’s decision was made. The TCC also could not impose an administrative fine under section 57 of the current TCA, because this would have been contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity.

Subordinate TCA Legislation Issued in 2019

In 2019, the TCC issued more sector-specific guidelines, which aimed to prevent wholesalers, retailers, and franchisors from engaging in unfair trade practices with their business partners. The most recent of these was a notification that focused specifically on franchise businesses; this is covered in detail in another article in this issue of Informed Counsel.

Some months prior to this was a notification that dealt with determination of unfair trade practices in wholesale and retail businesses. The Notification Regarding the Guidelines for the Consideration of Unfair Trade Practices in a Wholesale and Retail Business came into force on July 20, 2019. It sets out the criteria for the consideration of unfair trade practices and provides a list of the types of conduct that wholesalers and retailers (e.g., hypermarkets, department stores, supermarkets, convenience stores, etc.) are prohibited from undertaking in their dealings with manufacturers or distributors (including importers). These types of prohibited conduct can be further classified into eight categories:

  • Unfairly fixing a low purchasing price from the manufacturer or distributor (including forcing the manufacturer or distributor to provide a discount for products already delivered);
  • Unfairly demanding economic benefits from the manufacturer or distributor;
  • Unfairly returning the purchased goods without a justifiable reason;
  • Unfairly setting contractual conditions in the consignment agreement;
  • Unfairly forcing the manufacturer or distributor to purchase goods or services without a justifiable reason;
  • Unfairly assigning duties to the personnel of the manufacturer or distributor without prior agreement or the consent of the manufacturer or distributor;
  • Unfairly refusing to accept products that are specifically ordered or made for the wholesaler or retailer (e.g., private brand, house brand); and
  • Other unfair trade practices that may cause damage to a manufacturer or distributor, such as delaying payment for the purchase of goods, refusal to deal, or delisting of stock.

Going Forward

In 2020, the TCC will focus on releasing more guidelines for specific regulated sectors such as the telecommunications, financial, insurance, and energy sectors. The TCC is also in the process of drafting additional guidelines for the consideration of mergers under the TCA. In terms of enforcement, the TCC has revealed that there are around 40–50 cases relating to offenses under the TCA that remain under investigation. As the TCC continues to actively shape the evolution of competition law in Thailand, it is anticipated that the Thai competition law regime will see more significant developments and positive changes in the years to come.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 8, 2025
On November 18, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance issued an announcement that revises and expands the scope of goods that may be imported duty-free for educational, research, and cultural purposes, streamlining the framework for institutions and organizations engaged in academic and scientific activities. The announcement, which took effect the following day, amends customs duty exemptions under section 12 of the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530 (1987). Expanded Institutional Coverage The announcement broadens the types of entities eligible to import duty-free goods. Under the revised framework, the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI) now certifies imports for educational and research purposes by: Public and private educational institutions operating under the National Education Act; Government agencies with statutory mandates for education and research; and Associations and foundations whose objectives include educational research. This expansion recognizes a wider range of organizations engaged in knowledge-based activities and removes previous limitations that may have excluded certain nonprofit entities. To qualify for duty exemption, goods must be imported specifically for educational and research use, as certified by the MHESI. Additionally, equivalent goods must not already be available from domestic producers, although the certifying ministry may approve imports of domestically available items if it determines that foreign procurement is critically necessary. Categories of Duty-Free Goods The announcement specifies seven categories of goods eligible for duty exemption: Newspapers, printed materials, and documents Art objects and collectibles related to education, science, or culture Audiovisual equipment for educational, scientific, or cultural purposes Scientific materials, instruments, and equipment Goods for persons with disabilities Musical instruments, sports equipment, and skill-enhancement tools Art and architecture education equipment Qualification Procedures Before importing goods under this exemption, operators must secure certification from the MHESI. This certification process requires demonstrating that the goods will be used for educational or research purposes and,
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
November 26, 2025
On November 21, 2025, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Notification No. 103/2025 promulgating the Geographical Indication Rules (GI Rules), establishing a comprehensive framework for the registration and administration of geographical indications (GI), which are primarily governed by the Trademark Law of 2019. On the same day, the MOC released Notification No. 104/2025 specifying the required forms for GI-related matters. The GI Rules establish a comprehensive set of procedures for the entire GI application process, including filing applications, oppositions, cancellations, and invalidations, and appointing a local representative for GI-related matters. Under the Trademark Law and the GI Rules, domestic and foreign legal entities (organizations) that formally represent a defined group of stakeholders (such as producers or manufacturers of natural products or resources, agricultural products, handicrafts, or industrial products) and other competent authorities from government departments are eligible to apply for GI registration with the Intellectual Property Department (IPD) in Myanmar. Application A GI application can be submitted in either English or Myanmar language electronically, in person, or via post. Foreign applicants seeking to register a GI in Myanmar are required to submit a copy of the registration certificate from their country of origin with the GI application. This certificate must explicitly state the GI name of the protected product. Notably, foreign applicants are mandated to appoint a local representative in Myanmar to act on their behalf for GI-related matters with the IPD and appeal-related matters with the IP Agency. The form for appointing the local representative must be duly notarized in the applicant’s home country to ensure its legal validity and acceptance in accordance with the GI Rules. Application for Use of GI Logo Pursuant to the GI Rules, any interested individual, local or foreign, may submit an application to the IPD for authorization to use the GI logo,
November 12, 2025
Thailand’s Customs Department has announced the cancellation of the longstanding de minimis exemption, which waives import duties on goods valued at THB 1,500 or less, as of January 1, 2026. This policy shift will directly impact e-commerce, logistics, and retail sectors, and will have wide-ranging implications for any company involved in cross-border trade with Thailand. Background Under current regulations, imported goods with a customs value (cost, insurance, and freight, or “CIF”) of THB 1,500 or less are exempt from import duties. This has been a cornerstone of the cross-border e-commerce model, allowing for the duty-free import of millions of small parcels. Under the new policy effective January 1, 2026, all imported goods, regardless of value, will be subject to assessment for import duties upon entry into Thailand. The stated rationale for this change is to create fair competition for Thai small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which must pay VAT and other costs on their goods, putting them at a price disadvantage against foreign sellers who utilize the de minimis loophole. Business Implications This policy change will create new costs, compliance burdens, and operational challenges. For foreign e-commerce sellers and platforms: The most direct impact will be the addition of import duties to low-value items. Assuming the costs are passed on to the consumer, the higher prices and potentially more complex or slower customs clearance processes could lead to increased cart abandonment and reduced consumer demand. Businesses should review their pricing models and develop a clear strategy for calculating, declaring, and paying these new duties. For logistics providers and customs brokers: The administrative burden will be considerable. Carriers that previously handled millions of nondutiable parcels will now be required to process them for duty assessment and collection. This may necessitate new IT systems and streamlined processes to avoid delays at