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The new act, which will take effect from Nov 13, 2017, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act BE 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments and seeks to address many of its shortcomings.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

August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More
August 6, 2026
Every month, VAT-registered businesses in Thailand calculate their output and input VAT and file a return to pay the net amount due or claim a refund. Yet a common and costly dispute arises when a business that has paid input VAT to its supplier—and done everything asked of it—later finds that input VAT rejected on the grounds that the tax invoice was issued by “a person not entitled to issue tax invoices.” In these cases, a buyer may have confirmed the supplier’s VAT registration on the Revenue Department’s website, paid through the banking system, received a complete tax invoice, and kept full payment and inventory records. Even so, if the Revenue Department later determines that the supplier did not genuinely make the sale or collected the VAT without remitting it, the department can disallow the input VAT and assess additional tax, surcharge, and penalty—often more than a year after the transaction. A new article from tax and dispute resolution specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok examines how the Revenue Department and the courts approach these disputes, including two recent Supreme Court (Tax Division) decisions confirming that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving a supplier genuinely sold and delivered the goods and received payment. It considers why the VAT registration system offers no legal safe harbor, why the evidentiary burden falls hardest on online and cross-border transactions where buyers and sellers never meet, and how the Revenue Department’s own digital infrastructure could detect non-remitting suppliers at the source rather than shifting the loss to good-faith buyers. The article also sets out practical guidance: how to build a comprehensive “know-your-supplier” file at the time of a transaction, the procedural steps and strict deadlines for challenging a VAT assessment, and why dispute readiness belongs alongside tax planning at the center
Read More