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

September 1, 2017

New and Improved Penalty Scheme Under the 2017 Thai Customs Act

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Businesses involved with the Thai customs clearance process have been anxiously awaiting changes aimed at improving customs laws. These long-awaited changes come with the passage of the Customs Act BE 2560 (2017).

The new act, which will take effect from Nov 13, 2017, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act BE 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments and seeks to address many of its shortcomings. This article focuses on the substantial revisions to the Customs Act’s penalty scheme, revisions that will have a direct impact on both businesses and individuals.

Previously, most criminal penalties relevant to business operators were prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. For example, all customs offences, including smuggling and attempting to commit a customs offence, were classified together under Section 27. This offered little flexibility in terms of punishment and frequently failed to account for the considerable differences in the range of wrongdoing by an offender. The new Act seeks to deal with this classification problem by having penalties governed by three distinct sections: 242, 243 and 244.

Another key change is an amendment to the requirements of intent for claims of customs duty evasion. Under the previous act, Section 27 presumed strict liability for all included offences, even where violations may have been due to error rather than intentional or negligent misconduct.

Section 252 of the new Act, while still retaining some strict liability presumptions, now eliminates the highly controversial presumption of intent for customs duty evasion claims under Section 243. This is critical to supporting an accused party’s presumption of innocence by shifting the burden back to the prosecution to show “wilful intent” or “negligence”.

The new Act also revises the penalty scheme to distinguish between degrees of customs offences and prescribes new methods for calculating criminal fines. Previously, under Section 27, penalties were calculated at four times the combined price of goods plus the customs duty, and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years. While some discretion existed for claims settled before reaching court, once at the trial court stage the only penalties the court could impose were the four-times fine and/or imprisonment. Because these stringent penalties did not distinguish between types of offences and offered the courts no discretion in calculating fines, penalties were often out of proportion with the wrongdoing.

Under the new Act, penalties are set forth in Sections 242, 243 and 244. Section 243 applies to duty evasion and calculates criminal penalties using only the actual amount of duty evaded. The penalty multiplier is also limited to a range of one-half to four times the base amount. Penalties can still include imprisonment for up to 10 years, instead of or in addition to the fine.

The new Act also introduces different degrees of penalties for different levels of offences. For example, the penalty for smuggling is more severe than for duty evasion. Section 242 prohibits importing or exporting items that have “not duly passed through customs”. The penalty is four times the price of the article including the duty, and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years. In addition, the item will be forfeited regardless of whether the person is punished.

Section 244 prohibits customs evasion (importing items for the purpose of evading “restrictions or prohibitions with respect to such article”) and imposes a penalty of 500,000 baht, and/or up to 10 years in jail. The court may also order the article forfeited regardless of whether there is anyone to be punished.

It is important to note that, once the new Act becomes effective on Nov 13, it will apply retroactively to the benefit of any pending case, including claims that have not yet been subject to final settlement or judgement. This may provide a welcome opportunity for companies and individuals currently facing criminal customs claims.

The new Act substantially improves the customs clearance process by improving clarity and fairness. A priority for lawmakers was the overhaul of the penalty scheme, including the removal of strict liability, separate penalties for different types of offences, and reduced penalties compared with the previous scheme.

Ultimately, these improvements stand to benefit both the public and the private sectors. With supporting regulations expected to be announced in the near future, further clarity is also expected.

While there are still opportunities to improve the new law further and some existing challenges for companies seeking to ensure customs compliance, it goes a long way towards clarifying and correcting many of the shortcomings of its predecessor.

The authors would also like to thank Mark Hsien for his valuable contribution in preparing this article.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 19, 2022
On November 22, 2022, the Thai cabinet approved in principle the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act (the “Bill”) proposed by the Office of the Consumer Protection Board. While Thailand’s Product Liability Act B.E. 2551 (2008) deals with liability to consumers arising from unsafe products, the draft Liability for Defective Goods Act aims to ensure that consumers are well protected from defects in appliances and vehicles that might not initially be easily visible or noticed. Key Definitions The Bill applies most notably to business operators and consumers. In the Bill, a “business operator” who may potentially be liable is: a manufacturer (or its hirer) of goods for sale; or a consignee or importer who brings goods into Thailand for sale; or a seller or a hire purchase provider who cannot identify the manufacturer (or its hirer) or the importer. As opposed to the Product Liability Act, which clearly provides that all business operators in the supply chain must be jointly liable, the Bill lacks such clear guidance. This could be interpreted as meaning that under the current Bill only the business operator at the top of the supply chain who is sued in the same case as other business operators is responsible. A “consumer” is defined as a purchaser or hirer of goods from a manufacturer, including an assignee or successor of the goods from the purchaser or hirer. Scope and Application The Bill is intended to govern purchase or hire-purchase contracts for: electric appliances; electronic devices; personal cars and motorcycles; other goods that may be set out in a future royal decree issued under the act. The Bill will not apply to any purchase or hire purchase of used products or as-is products when this is clearly stated by the seller or hire-purchase provider or the auctioneer in
Read More
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 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