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

July 20, 2017

Long Awaited Changes to the Thai Customs Act Signed Into Law

T-AB: Thai-American Business, Journal of the American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand

On May 17, 2017, Thailand published its new Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017) in the Royal Gazette, the official journal in which new laws are announced. The Act, effective 180 days from publication, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments.

The historic new Act represents the culmination of many years of drafts, consultations, and sometimes contentious debate. Throughout the process, the government collaborated closely with private sector partners to ensure an improved customs process. The new Customs Act joins twenty-four tax laws that the government has rewritten or amended to meet international standards in order to better support trade and investment and to improve Thailand’s transparency and competitive advantages. Ultimately, the new law is a significant step forward adding clarity and improving fairness for all parties involved in the customs clearance process.

The previous Customs Act of 1926 included a number of ambiguities, creating difficulties for corporations to ensure compliance. For example, the Customs Department defined “customs evasion” and “customs avoidance” as different offenses under Section 27 of the Act; however, the Office of the Council of State (OCS) and the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) considered “customs avoidance” a sub-offense of “customs evasion.” Similarly, the previous Act was ambiguous on officer and director liability, especially as the Act failed to define “managing director,” “managing partner,” and “person responsible for the operation of a juristic person.”

The previous Act also allowed a customs reward-sharing regime that distorted incentives during enforcement. The Director-General of the Customs Department possesses the authority to “reward” customs officials and third-party whistleblowers for reporting or otherwise successfully pursuing instances of customs evasion (smuggling) and customs avoidance (false declarations).

The reward system is in stark contrast to those practiced in many other countries such as Britain, India, and Pakistan, where rewards have strict limitations. Although a reward system can help identify customs avoidance and evasion, overly generous rewards can create incentives to pursue or facilitate wrongdoing, or introduce bias during audits and investigations.

Other troubling aspects of the previous Act included shifted burdens of proof, penalties significantly out of proportion to the alleged wrongdoing, strict liability even in cases where under-declaration of customs duty was a mistake, and an opaque post-clearance audit and appeal process.

The new Act addresses several of these substantive issues and offers relief to importers subject to the historically difficult customs environment. In enacting the new law, the Thai National Legislative Assembly acknowledged these well-known challenges and indicated the desire to resolve outdated or inconsistent provisions. The government noted that the ambiguity created difficulties not only for the private sector, but hampered law enforcement.

In addition, the government noted the growth of international trade requiring improved “customs formality and other relevant procedures in order to be efficient and consistent with international standards, which will increase [Thailand’s] competitiveness.”

A number of the changes are expected to vastly improve the customs clearance process. The new Act eliminates strict liability presumptions for customs duty evasion and now requires “willful intent” or “negligence.” Presumed liability for officers, directors, and other authorized persons is also eliminated.

The rewards regime will be revised dramatically, particularly with caps on the amounts for rewards. For example, whistleblowers will now only receive a maximum of THB 5 million.

The new Act also standardizes and sets clear timelines for post-clearance audits and Board of Appeal reviews. Under the current regime, appeals can take years to resolve. Similarly, the new Act imposes clear deadlines for the return of duty guarantees.

Another critical change includes revisions to the method for calculating criminal fines. Previously, penalties were determined using four times the combined price of goods plus the customs duty. The new calculation will be based solely on the amount of duty evaded and will be limited to a multiplier between 0.5 and four times the base amount. Courts will now have discretion in calculating criminal fines.

The new Act also introduces different degrees of penalties for different offense levels. For example, the penalty for smuggling is more severe than for duty evasion. The Act also relinquishes jurisdiction of offenses relating to restricted goods.

The new Customs Act of 2017 represents a significant improvement in fairness and clarity that will benefit not only the private sector, but the Thai government itself. Around 80 sub-regulations are expected to be announced before the new Act becomes effective in mid-November 2017.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts