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

October 7, 2021

Importers and Customs Consultation: Addressing Duty Disputes Early and Efficiently

Subscribe to Updates

The fast and efficient movement of goods is a hallmark of the modern global supply chain. In fact, it is often an expectation, with contractual commitments dependent on the timely and problem-free delivery of goods to the destination country. If unexpected costs or unreasonable delays occur, importers can find themselves liable to customers or beneficiaries, resulting in reduction or even elimination of anticipated revenue. One area of particular importance for importers is the customs clearance and assessment process, which is often one of the last but most critical phases of the global supply chain.

Importers, regardless of their experience or sophistication, have a duty to understand and comply with all applicable laws and regulations for the importation and classification of goods sent from other countries. While Thailand, like many countries, is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and is obliged to adhere to WTO guidelines for the valuation and classification of goods. It also has its own regulations, policies, and customs laws that provide a legal framework for customs assessment challenges by importers. Often, importers or their agents can effectively process and clear goods with the assigned customs officials without encountering any issues. However, disputes do inevitably arise, often relating to origin, classification, and duty assessment. If not addressed early, a dispute can escalate, leading to seizure of goods, posts of guarantees, final assessments by customs authorities, and even allegations of civil or criminal wrongdoing. At such an advanced stage, it may be too late to engage in consultation to achieve a dispute settlement.

Instead of risking such a predicament, importers seeking to resolve disputes with customs officials should explore pre-assessment consultation opportunities. At this stage, there remains flexibility in approach and time to consult with customs officials, make submissions, and consider a flexible settlement. If this critical time passes and Thai customs issues an official assessment letter, options for an importer who wishes to challenge customs assessment will be severely limited.

In this first article in a two-part series on customs dispute resolution, we focus on pre-assessment consultation procedures and consider how importers can significantly reduce risks and liabilities by taking proactive steps to resolve any issues.

Letter of Assessment

To better understand the benefits of pre-assessment consultation and to appreciate the opportunity available to importers in disagreement with customs authorities, it is first important to understand the implications of an official letter of assessment. Normally, official letters of assessment are issued well after the period of importation and after Thai customs has conducted an initial audit and made duty or classification assessments. If there is a disagreement about this initial (or preliminary) customs assessment, an importer or its representative may defend its position, accept the preliminary assessment, or otherwise reach a negotiated settlement with customs. If no action is taken or a resolution of the dispute is not possible, Thai customs will issue an official letter of assessment.

Once this official assessment letter is issued, discretion in settlement is gone and only the full value of assessment will be accepted. Consultation opportunities in support of the importer’s arguments are no longer available, and the only remaining recourse is an official challenge with the Customs Board of Appeals or with the Thai courts—and only after the importer posts appropriate security based on the official customs assessment. Furthermore, under Thai law there may even be a risk of criminal claims brought by or through the Department of Special Investigation against the importer and its representatives. This risk is significantly lower if a matter is addressed at the pre-assessment stage.

Pre-assessment Consultation

When a dispute arises with Thai customs, it is critically important that the dispute be addressed early, since this provides time to engage customs officials, educate them on the importer’s position, and provide supporting documentation. It is also the only reasonable opportunity to consider an official negotiated settlement with customs. While the law does not provide a specific timeline for this consultation process, it should begin promptly to ensure that Thai customs is engaged and not moving toward issuance of an official assessment letter. If parties are engaged and are making progress in consultation, issuance of an assessment letter is less likely. However, if the law requires filing of a claim within the applicable prescription period for an offense (e.g., 10 years from the date of importation for matters involving duty declaration), customs officials may have no choice but to move ahead with official assessment in order to preserve its right to claim under Thai law.

Consultations with customs officials usually follow an initial audit by the assigned customs inquiry officer. If there are concerns about qualification for duty benefits under free trade agreements or if customs authorities believe there has been a classification error or under-declaration of duty, customs will advise the importer via official notice, often with a request to appear before customs. This is the beginning of the post-dispute consultation process and is an opportunity for an importer or its representative to explain its position and to otherwise convince the customs authority of why there is no violation of customs laws.

Customs authorities might make specific requests for supporting documentation from an importer. Such documentation, if available, might confirm the customs authority’s position or may serve to support an importer’s defense against customs dispute inquiries. It is important that any request for documentation be carefully considered so the importer can make a measured, but responsive, submission. This can both support the importer’s position and demonstrate good faith to the customs authority. This is an important factor in resolution of a dispute, whether through successful proof of the importer’s defense or through discretionary settlement.

Even if the customs authority has not requested information, it may be in the importer’s best interest to submit clarification of its legal position to the assigned customs inquiry officer. This can be anything from issue-based explanations via a simple letter to more detailed position statements explaining the importer’s legal position on valuation or duty exemptions. The level of complexity usually depends on the particulars of the case and customs’ understanding of the issues in dispute. This might involve a single submission or even multiple ones over the period of consultation, supported by in-person discussions on the issues addressed. Through this approach, carefully prepared, good-faith submissions of legitimate legal positions may lead to customs accepting the importer’s declarations. Sometimes, however, it is simply not possible to obtain customs’ acceptance of the importer’s declarations, in which case a focus on possible discretionary settlement may also be considered.

Settlement     

Customs settlement guidelines issued and updated by the director general of Thai Customs in 2017 permit settlement of active customs disputes. They also provide the customs authority with discretion in determining a negotiated settlement, subject to approval by the responsible customs settlement committee. When a dispute with customs cannot be resolved with measured, good-faith consultations and submissions, settlement may be the last viable option before issuance of a formal customs letter of assessment. Settlement at anything less than the full amount of the customs assessment is simply not possible once the customs authority has issued a letter of assessment. By consideration of settlement options at the consultation stage, it may be possible to avert an unfavorable assessment, resolve a dispute, and avoid costly and uncertain litigation with the Customs Board of Appeals or with the Thai court.

The most effective strategy in negotiation typically involves good-faith consultation and submissions in support of a negotiated settlement. Depending on the specifics of a given dispute, this may involve multiple consultations and submissions over time before arriving at a value approved by both the customs inquiry official and the settlement committee. If approved, the settlement represents a final resolution of the dispute.

Conclusion

The efficient movement of commercial goods is a critical component of the modern supply chain, and millions of goods cross borders every day without issue or dispute. When a dispute does arise, however, it can have a financial knock-on effect on multiple contractual players, leading to uncertainty and potential liabilities. For importers faced with customs disputes it is critically important that they and their representatives promptly and strategically assess their legal position and engage in focused consultation efforts with the relevant customs authorities. Depending on the particular case, consultation may lead to resolution of the dispute entirely or to a negotiated settlement, eliminating the uncertainty and cost of protracted litigation of customs claims.

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

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,
Read More
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More