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 The Act, effective 180 days from publication, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments.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​ 

August 19, 2025
On August 6, 2025, Myanmar’s National Defence and Security Council (NDSC) issued Order No. 20/2025, announcing a change in the composition of the country’s Foreign Exchange Supervisory Committee (FESC). The prime minister has been appointed committee chair of the FESC, and five other individuals were appointed to the committee. The order took immediate effect. Originally established in April 2022, the FESC is responsible for approving foreign currency conversion, granting exemptions to foreign exchange restrictions, and permitting overseas transfers of foreign currency. The FESC supervises the flow of foreign currencies for domestic and foreign investment, manufacturing, exports and imports, and service businesses (including education- and health-related initiatives). The FESC is specifically responsible for considering and approving the use of foreign currency for the following: Importing machinery, vehicles, equipment, and raw materials essential for foreign investment and manufacturing projects; Importing fuel, medicine, cooking oil, fertilizer, insecticide, and construction materials not readily available on the domestic market; Covering Myanmar citizens’ needs abroad, such as medical treatment, education, or religious activities; Facilitating imports of general goods, loan repayments, interest payments to foreign lenders, service payments, and profit repatriation from investments; and Importing luxury products, including brand-name goods, jewelry, sports cars, and watches. The FESC is empowered to carry out further duties related to foreign exchange management as assigned by the NDSC Importers, exporters, investors, and business owners are encouraged to consult the most current FESC guidelines and approval lists before conducting transactions in Myanmar. For more details on these FESC composition developments, or on any aspect of financial regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
August 1, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Corporate Governance 2025, part of the International Comparative Legal Guides (ICLG) series published by Global Legal Group. This respected guide offers comprehensive, jurisdiction-specific overviews of corporate governance laws and practices around the world. Each jurisdictional chapter follows a clear Q&A format, providing practical insights into critical issues such as: Sources of corporate governance regulation Shareholders’ rights, powers, and responsibilities Structure and duties of management bodies Stakeholder involvement in governance Transparency and reporting requirements ESG and sustainability-related obligations Cybersecurity and technology-related disclosures The Vietnam chapter was authored by Tram Ngoc Bich Nguyen, Truc Thi Thanh Tran, Dung Thi Phuong Le, and Quang Minh Vu, members of Tilleke & Gibbins’ corporate and commercial team in Ho Chi Minh City. The authors provide detailed analysis of Vietnam’s corporate governance framework, including recent developments such as the 2025 amendments to the Law on Enterprises requiring disclosure of ultimate beneficial ownership and the increasing emphasis on sustainable business practices and responsible corporate conduct. The chapter also discusses practical considerations for foreign investors in Vietnam, such as overlapping signing authorities between key company officers, enforcement of shareholders’ agreements, and disclosure obligations related to ownership and management roles. The complete Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF below. The Vietnam chapter—and the full Corporate Governance 2025 guide—are also freely available on the ICLG website.
July 25, 2025
On June 17, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 76/2025/QH15 (Amended LOE) amending and supplementing the 2020 Law on Enterprises, which aims to reshape the legal framework to enhance transparency and alignment with international standards. The Amended LOE took effect from July 1, 2025. Below are key notes on the Amended LOE. Recognition of Beneficial Owners The beneficial owner (BO) concept was previously addressed under Vietnam’s anti-money laundering framework. However, the formal recognition of a BO in the Amended LOE marks a pivotal advancement in embedding ownership transparency into corporate governance, in line with the G7 Financial Action Task Force’s standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. Under the Amended LOE and Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP of the government dated June 30, 2025, on enterprise registration (Decree 168), a BO is identified through either equity ownership or control rights. Equity ownership: Individuals holding 25% or more of a company’s charter capital or voting shares, either directly or indirectly, qualify as BOs. Indirect ownership is further defined as ownership of at least 25% of charter capital or voting shares through an intermediary organization. Control rights: Individuals with the authority to make or influence major decisions are considered BOs. The actual control over a company includes the power (i) to appoint or remove most or all members of the board of directors or the members’ council or the general director of a company; (ii) to amend the charter; or (iii) to decide other key matters specified in the company’s charter. Notably, individuals representing state ownership in state-owned enterprises are excluded from the scope of the BO concept. Companies are responsible for collecting, updating, and retaining information about BOs and cooperating with authorities when requested to identify BOs, among other obligations. Additionally, any companies registered before July 1, 2025, must
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that