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 The Act, effective 180 days from publication, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments.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

October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 30, 2025
Thailand has introduced a comprehensive overhaul of its tax litigation procedures that will significantly impact how tax disputes are handled. The Regulations for Tax Cases B.E. 2568 (2025) take effect on November 24, 2025, and repeal the prior B.E. 2544 (2001) regulations in full. These regulations support the implementation of the Act on the Establishment of the Tax Court and Tax Case Procedure (No. 3) B.E. 2568 (2025), which expands the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to certain criminal tax matters. Published in the Government Gazette on October 14, 2025, the regulations have been reorganized into three parts covering civil cases, criminal cases, and forms, and are designed to accelerate proceedings, tighten evidentiary discipline, and modernize court operations. Structural Reform and Scope The prior regime governed only civil tax disputes. Under the new framework, the regulations introduce a dedicated chapter for criminal cases alongside updated civil procedures, as the Tax Court now has express authority to adjudicate specified criminal tax offenses. Select mechanisms applied in civil case proceedings, such as electronic communication, recording testimony, and appointing experts, also apply to criminal proceedings mutatis mutandis where they do not conflict with criminal procedure. Civil Cases: Evidence Submission, Deadlines, and Scheduling Parties must submit, together with the witness list, originals of all documentary evidence, media, or electronic data (such as files, USB drives, or CDs), and all physical evidence in the party’s possession. Failure to submit any original within the deadline (see below) results in a loss of the right to adduce that item at trial, subject only to narrow exceptions where submission is impossible due to force majeure or where receipt of the evidence is indispensable to the interests of justice. The practical impact is that parties are now obligated to assemble and verify all original documents and data at the very
Read More
October 24, 2025
The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), a division of Thailand’s Office of the Judiciary, has taken a step toward harmonizing the tools available for dispute resolution. On August 8, 2025, the institute formally launched the TAI Mediation Center (TAI-MC). Although the amendments to TAI’s Arbitration Rules that will govern the TAI-MC have not yet been finalized, the framework now under consideration suggests that TAI is positioning itself to become a more attractive venue for commercial dispute resolution. In the regime contemplated under the current version of the amendments, TAI proceedings will adopt an “arbitration-annexed mediation” mechanism—commonly termed the “Med-Arb” model—while preserving the procedural safeguards indispensable to arbitral neutrality. Mediation will be entrusted to a separate, dedicated mediator appointed under the TAI-MC who is precluded from serving on the arbitral tribunal in the same matter. By clearly separating the functions of mediator and arbitrator, the institute eliminates any risk that confidential information disclosed during mediation could influence the adjudicatory outcome if the parties do not settle. Only when all parties subsequently make a request may that same mediator assume arbitral duties in the case. The parties will retain substantial autonomy in selecting the mediator. They may either designate a mediator by mutual consent or invite the TAI-MC to appoint one from its authorized panel. TAI has announced its intention to curate that panel with particular emphasis on commercial expertise and cross-cultural negotiation skills, supplemented by ongoing professional training. Where the parties cannot agree on remuneration, the mediator’s fee will default to a tariff comparable to the TAI-MC’s cost schedule, which under the current version of the amendments will be approximately THB 45,000 for disputes in which the aggregate claims do not exceed THB 10 million, with incremental increases tied to higher claim values. This predictable cost matrix is aimed at enhancing
Read More
October 24, 2025
In Vietnam, litigation is generally treated as a last resort in dispute resolution. Businesses often strive to avoid court proceedings, given the potential for disrupted relationships, higher costs, and lengthy timelines. Yet, litigation is sometimes unavoidable, whether to secure a remedy or respond to a claim. Familiarity with Vietnam’s court system and procedures is therefore crucial for any party involved in such matters. Civil Litigation in Vietnam offers a concise overview of the country’s civil court system and litigation process. The guide a highlights essential points for navigating legal disputes in Vietnam, whether as a plaintiff or a defendant. Tilleke & Gibbins also publishes a similar guide for Thailand. The full Civil Litigation in Vietnam guide is available as a PDF through the button below.
Read More