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

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 The Act, effective 180 days from publication, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments.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

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More
January 20, 2026
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has imposed new restrictions on foreign-majority shareholding and land ownership for companies in certain promoted activities. The changes took effect on September 1, 2025, but were not published in the Government Gazette until December 30, 2025, under Notification of the Board of Investment No. Sor. 7/2568 on the Amendment to List of Activities Eligible for Investment Promotion under Notification of the Board of Investment No. 9/2565, dated July 22, 2025. Foreign Land Ownership Restrictions Generally, foreign land ownership is one of the privileges granted to BOI-promoted companies, allowing them to own land to engage in the promoted activities. However, with these new restrictions, the BOI will no longer grant land-ownership privileges to foreign-majority-owned companies that conduct business activities in the following categories: Rolling, drawing, casting, or forging of nonferrous metals (category 5.4.9) Manufacturing of ferrous metal products or ferrous metal parts (category 5.4.11.2) Manufacturing of nonferrous metal products and/or nonferrous metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.4) Manufacturing of other metal products, including other metal parts for industrial use (category 5.4.11.5) Manufacture of chemical products for industry (category 6.2) Manufacture of plastic products for industrial goods and parts (category 6.4.1) These restrictions do not apply to existing BOI-promoted companies that have at least three projects granted promotion under the same juristic person during the past 15 years (2011–2025) with total investment of at least THB 5 billion, excluding the cost of land and working capital. Foreign Shareholding Restrictions For companies to be eligible for BOI promotion in three other categories of business activities, at least 51% of the company’s registered capital must be held by Thai individual shareholders, unless the BOI-promoted activity is located within a special border economic zone as designated by the BOI. These three categories are: Manufacture of bags made of
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More