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​ 

May 8, 2026
The global trade environment for Thai exporters in 2026 has shifted significantly. Recent enforcement developments in both the United States and the European Union show a clear shift in trade policy: regulators are no longer focused solely on tariff levels, but also on whether products genuinely originate where exporters claim they do. Adding to this complexity, the US Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision striking down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs has upended the legal basis for a major pillar of US tariff policy, creating significant legal and commercial uncertainty for exporters worldwide, including in Thailand. For Thai companies integrated into regional supply chains, this change carries material implications. Although the IEEPA-based US reciprocal tariffs have been struck down, intensified circumvention enforcement continues under separate legal authorities, and the administration has signaled its intent to reimpose tariffs under alternative statutory frameworks, while EU authorities are using anti-circumvention investigations where trade patterns shift. In both jurisdictions, the decisive issue is whether manufacturing in Thailand constitutes substantial transformation under applicable rules of origin. Such origin determinations increasingly drive duty exposure, audit risk and commercial disputes. In 2026, the ability to defend a product’s Thai origin is not merely a procedural step, it is central to preserving market access in the US and EU. Impact Of US Circumvention Enforcement and an Uncertain Tariff Landscape Following the 2025 Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, Thailand saw a shift in its tariff relationship with the US. A substantial range of Thai-origin goods were subject to a 19% reciprocal tariff under the IEEPA. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the use of IEEPA for tariffs has removed the legal basis for that rate. The Administration has indicated it intends to pursue replacement tariffs under other statutory authorities,
April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
April 9, 2026
In March 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated two significant investigations under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 that directly affect Thailand. The first investigation examines overproduction in manufacturing sectors caused by government support or policies that distort normal market conditions across 16 economies, including Thailand. The second investigation, launched the following day, targets 60 economies, also including Thailand, for alleged failures to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Taken together, these investigations represent a significant escalation in US trade enforcement and create substantial risk for Thai exporters, manufacturers, and businesses with supply chain connections to the United States. The investigations are moving on an accelerated timeline, with the USTR indicating that potential trade measures, including tariffs, could be imposed as early as July 2026. This article provides an overview of the investigations, highlights their specific implications for Thailand, and outlines practical considerations for affected businesses. Section 301 as a Trade Enforcement Tool Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the USTR authority to investigate foreign acts, policies, or practices that are considered unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict US commerce. If the USTR concludes that such practices exist, the statute allows a wide range of remedial measures, including the imposition of tariffs, nontariff trade restrictions, and negotiated agreements with foreign governments. Unlike other trade authorities, Section 301 does not set limits on the level of tariffs or the duration of measures, giving the USTR considerable flexibility to address perceived trade imbalances or unfair practices. Historically, Section 301 investigations take up to a year to complete. In this instance, however, the USTR has indicated that the investigations will proceed on a much faster timetable, with an unofficial target of concluding by July 2026.
April 1, 2026
On March 30, 2026, Thailand’s Customs Department announced a strategy to raise import duties on a broad range of consumer goods—including plastic items and electronics accessories—to their maximum statutory ceilings, which often sit at 30% or 40%. Many of these goods currently benefit from promotional or incentive rates as low as 5%. For importers, e-commerce platforms, and logistics providers, this development demands immediate attention. While these increases generally require cabinet approval, they do not require full parliamentary amendment of the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, as the Customs director-general and the finance minister hold delegated authority to adjust rates within existing statutory bounds. Businesses should not assume that the legislative process will provide significant lead time before higher rates take effect. Death of the De Minimis: Abolishing the THB 1,500 Loophole This “ceiling-rate” policy, which is designed to equalize the landed cost of foreign goods with the domestic production costs of Thai manufacturers, builds on a sweeping set of customs reforms that have already begun to reshape Thailand’s trade environment. The foundation of this new regime was laid on January 1, 2026, when Thailand formally abolished the longstanding THB 1,500 duty exemption for small imported parcels under Customs Notification No. 219/2568. Every imported item is now subject to VAT and applicable import duties for its declared value, regardless of parcel size or transaction amount. By narrowing the scope of exemptions previously granted to low-value goods under the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, the government has made clear that the era of tax-free cross-border micro-imports is over. Three-Phased Strategy and Legal Modernization The March 30 announcement is the second phase of a three-part regulatory roadmap: Immediate enforcement: The removal of the THB 1,500 loophole and the imposition of VAT on all parcels, effective January 1, 2026. Tariff realignment: The current