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​ 

November 24, 2022
On November 24, 2022, Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Marcin Czepelak and leaders of Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs chaired the opening ceremony of the PCA’s Representative Office in Hanoi. Beyond its headquarters in The Hague, the PCA has opened offices in other cities to make its services more accessible in different regions. The Hanoi office will be the PCA’s fourth office outside its headquarters. The PCA, established in 1899, is an intergovernmental organization which provides resolution services for disputes involving states, state entities, international organizations, as well as private entities. It provides and administers arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and fact-finding commissions of inquiry. The PCA’s services are primarily used in Europe and Asia. In cases administered in 2021, approximately 47% of the disputing parties were from the Western European and Others Group of the United Nations Regional Groups, and 40% from the Asia Pacific Group. The majority of disputes resolved by PCA are state-related disputes; however, the PCA’s scope of settlement is also extended to the private sector. The PCA’s Hanoi office is staffed to administer PCA hearings and meetings and will provide administrative services in support of parties and arbitrators conducting arbitral proceedings under the PCA’s auspices, serving as the official channel of communications and ensuring safe custody of documents. The PCA can also provide such services as financial administration, logistical and technical support for meetings and hearings, travel arrangements, and general secretarial and linguistic support. Currently, Vietnam has some active members of the PCA. The opening of the PCA representative office is a step toward realizing commitments between Vietnam and the PCA in their protocol signed in 2021, and serving the evolving dispute resolution needs of states and other entities in the coming years. With the new office in Hanoi, it is expected that
Read More
October 31, 2022
On October 21, 2022, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) added Myanmar to the list of high-risk jurisdictions having significant deficiencies to counter money laundering, terrorist financing, and financing of proliferation. The FATF is an international financial watchdog that aims to impede global money laundering and terrorist financing. It is a policymaking body that monitors implementation of FATF Recommendations and FATF Standards and is not binding as a supervisory authority for financial institutions. Myanmar will remain on the list of countries subject to a call for action until the country has implemented an action plan that: demonstrates an improved understanding of money laundering risks in key areas; demonstrates that onsite and offsite inspections are risk-based, and hundi (a type of informal remittance instrument for transferring money) operators are registered and supervised; demonstrates enhanced use of financial intelligence in law enforcement authorities’ investigations, and increasing operational analysis and dissemination by Myanmar’s Financial Intelligence Unit; ensures that money laundering is investigated and prosecuted in line with risks; demonstrates investigation of transnational money laundering cases with international cooperation; demonstrates an increase in the freezing, seizure, and confiscation of criminal proceeds, instrumentalities, and property of equivalent value; manages seized assets to preserve the value of seized goods until confiscation; and demonstrates implementation of targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation financing. Enhanced Customer Due Diligence Unlike other blacklisted countries, Myanmar is not applicable to countermeasures. Instead, the financial institutions of members and nonmember states of the FATF are urged to conduct “enhanced customer due diligence (CDD) measures” to mitigate the risk of money laundering, terrorist financing, and proliferation financing from Myanmar. Examples of these enhanced CDD measures to be applied to certain higher-risk activities include: Obtaining additional identifying information about the customer (available through public databases or internet sources) and regularly updating the identifying
Read More
October 27, 2022
Under Thai bankruptcy law, a creditor can file a request for a debtor to be placed under an absolute receivership order and bankruptcy judgment. However, the debtor must be insolvent, and the debt owed to the creditor or creditors must be at least THB 1 million (for a debtor who is a natural person) or THB 2 million (for the debtor who is a juristic person). In order to know whether the latter requirement is met, the debt must be “determinable”—that is, known and monetarily quantifiable. More specifically, determinable debt is debt (up to the filing date) in an amount that can be calculated, whether the debt is payable immediately or in the future. The debt can be under a loan agreement or under a sale-and-purchase agreement. One question that sometimes comes up is whether damages arising out of termination of such an agreement are considered determinable debt. According to a number of Supreme Court precedents, if the debt (e.g., rent, fine or penalty) can be calculated as referred to in the agreement, the debt is determinable. Three of these cases are described below. Supreme Court Case No. 2653/2526 In this case, the defendant made a partial delivery of oil (i.e., not the amount fully expected) to the plaintiff, who claimed that the defendant owed them a fine of almost THB 14.9 million, calculated in accordance with the sale-and-purchase agreement for the oil. The defendant argued that the debt was not determinable because the plaintiff did not prove whether they suffered damage or not. The Supreme Court noted that the agreement for sale and purchase of oil stated clearly that if the defendant could not deliver oil to the plaintiff in full, the plaintiff had the right to terminate the agreement and fine the defendant 25 percent of the
Read More
October 19, 2022
The Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992) is one of the most important laws regulating manufacturing businesses in Thailand. It applies to businesses either with machinery of 50 horsepower or more in total, or with a minimum of 50 workers in a facility that conducts “factory work” as defined under related ministerial regulations. The act was recently amended to extend the period of validity for factory licenses and to make other miscellaneous changes that facilitate business. However, the act’s criminal liabilities were left unchanged, and they remain a vital tool for the authorities to exert control over relevant standards and prosecute violations. Both fines and imprisonment are available as sanctions under the law. Examples of common violations of the Factory Act and their potential penalties include: Setting up and operating a factory without acquiring a license: up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 5,365), or both. Operating with noise level exceeding the standard set by the Ministry of Industry: a fine of up to THB 200,000. Not displaying a factory license in an open and easily visible location in the factory: a fine of up to THB 5,000 (approx. USD 134). Doing a test run of machinery prior to the start of the factory operations without notifying the authorities: a fine of up to THB 20,000. As factory activities are regulated in considerable detail, overlooking a minor change could potentially put the company at risk. The risk of violating the Factory Act increases when compliance is not a proactive policy—such as by instituting systems or safeguards to ensure adherence to the rules. Criminal Liability Violation of the Factory Act is especially a concern because criminal liability under the act is not limited to juristic persons (i.e., companies) but also applies to the director,
Read More