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The new act, which will take effect from Nov 13, 2017, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act BE 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments and seeks to address many of its shortcomings.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

April 18, 2024
In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by
Read More
April 17, 2024
Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding
Read More
April 11, 2024
Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any
Read More
April 4, 2024
On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].
Read More