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The new act, which will take effect from Nov 13, 2017, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act BE 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments and seeks to address many of its shortcomings.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​ 

September 7, 2021
COVID-19 and the resulting lockdown measures to limit outbreaks in Thailand have caused significant financial difficulties for many business operators, large and small. Whether a business is a creditor or debtor, there is a high likelihood they have faced or will face a default caused by the pandemic. This article identifies three legal options available when a party defaults—civil cases, bankruptcy actions, and business rehabilitation actions—and compares key elements associated with each option. For context, those three options are defined as follows: Civil case. A legal proceeding in which a creditor files a civil lawsuit (or arbitration claim) against a debtor for debt collection. If a debtor fails to settle a debt in accordance with a judgment, the creditor can ask the court to enforce the judgment by seizure and sale of the debtor’s assets through public auction. Bankruptcy action. A legal proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act in which a government authority can collect a debtor’s assets, sell the assets by public auction, and distribute the net proceeds among creditors. In bankruptcy proceedings, the creditors will receive repayment in proportion to the size of the outstanding debts. Business rehabilitation action. A legal proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act aimed at helping a debtor recover from insolvency and continue its business. Debtors are given debt relief and a “new start” through business rehabilitation, while creditors are able to collect a higher percentage of outstanding debt under rehabilitation than they would under a bankruptcy action. In short, a civil case is a claim in court for repayment of a specific debt, a bankruptcy action results in distribution of the debtor’s assets among the creditors, and a business rehabilitation action aims to enable the debtor to stay in business while repaying their debts to some degree. A civil case may be appropriate when
Read More
August 26, 2021
Around the world, COVID-19 is continuing to threaten the health of millions, interrupt daily life, and throttle business activity. In Thailand, the latest wave of infections has been more intense than any since the beginning of the pandemic, and many businesses have been forced to close down once again. There are reasons for hope though—chief among them the increasing pace of vaccinations. Not only are the vaccines effective at preventing serious health issues, they are helping keep both employees and customers safe in business settings so that commerce, trade, and tourism can resume once again. Many in Thailand have already been vaccinated, and struggling employers are looking ahead to safely resuming full business activities, from reopening offices for employees who have been working from home, to welcoming customers and clients back to an environment that minimizes the risk of COVID-19 exposure. In anticipation of such a return to business at full capacity, many Thai employers are taking note of companies and organizations overseas boosting COVID-19 safety in workplaces by mandating vaccines and other measures, and asking whether such mandates could be imposed here in Thailand. The main legal concept to consider here is the provision in the Labor Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998), which authorizes employers to issue “lawful and just” orders to employees. For an order to be “lawful and just,” it must be proportionate to the circumstance. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers can refer to the Communicable Diseases Act B.E. 2558 (2015), as well as other local regulations, to provide grounds when asserting that their risk-mitigation orders are proportionate, lawful, and just. It is doubtful that a Thai court would rule that the circumstances we find ourselves in now would justify an employer requiring employees to be vaccinated, but this legal standard can
Read More
August 23, 2021
The title of a video game is likely one of the most valuable assets that a game developer holds. Registering a game title as a trademark secures exclusive rights over that title and prevents third parties from using it for games or related goods or services of their own. However, whether a game title is descriptive of the computer game is an issue that has come up repeatedly in Thailand with applications to register video game titles as trademarks. According to current practice, the trademark registrar and the Board of Trademarks at Thailand’s Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) do consider a game title to be descriptive of a computer game, regardless of whether the title is related to the actual features or characteristics of the game. In a recent case, a mobile game developer decided to mount a challenge to one such rejection of a video game title trademark application. The developer, which has brought many popular mobile games to the global market, had submitted a trademark application for the title of their mobile game “Clash Royale” in classes of computer game software (Class 9) and electronic games (Class 28). This application was rejected by the registrar and the Board of Trademarks for non-distinctiveness. The registrar and the board decided that the words “Clash Royale” can be interpreted to mean “battle of the kings.” In connection with goods in the applied-for classes, these words describe the nature of the goods as “games related to battles of the kings” and therefore are not registrable because they do not exhibit the distinctiveness required by Thailand’s Trademark Act. The game developer enlisted Tilleke & Gibbins to appeal the board’s decision to the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court), arguing that the mark “Clash Royale” is inherently distinctive and not directly
Read More
August 20, 2021
On August 19, 2021, the Ho Chi Minh City Police Investigation Department shared that they are investigating a case of copyright and related rights infringement under the decision to prosecute a criminal case related to the website Phimmoi.net. This is the first time Vietnam’s police force has prosecuted a case of copyright infringement.
Read More