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

March 23, 2012

Preparation for the AEC: Free Flow of Goods

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

The year 2015 will be a year of special importance for Thailand as well as all Asean member states, as it marks the establishment of the Asean Economic Community (AEC) as agreed on by country leaders at the 2007 Asean Summit.

Section 9 of the AEC Blueprint clearly lays out the five core elements to attain the goal of having a single market and production base for the Asean region—the free flow of goods, services, investment, capital, and skilled labor.

But with less than three years until the AEC is to be formed, are individual countries ready? Have respective governments been taking the proper measures in preparation for inclusion in the AEC?

Let us take a look at the issue of free flow of goods. Certain international protocols are already in effect that help facilitate movement of goods within Asean. The Asean Free Trade Agreement, Common Effective Preferential Tariffs, and the Asean Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) greatly reduce or eliminate tariff rates for most goods traded among Asean member states.

For example, under ATIGA, import duties are effectively eliminated for all products (with exceptions of certain “sensitive” goods) traded intra-regionally among the more developed Asean-6 (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand). Import duties are scheduled for elimination between 2015 and 2018 for the four less-developed CLMV states (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam).

ATIGA also requires member states to eliminate “qualitative restrictions,” which are defined under Article 2 as “measures intended to prohibit or restrict quantity of trade with other member states, whether made effective through quotas, licenses, or other measures with equivalent effect, including administrative measures and requirements which restrict trade.”

But there is more to reaching the objective of free flow of goods than tariff elimination. A commercial importer is affected not only by the costs of import duties but also by the time and costs related to customs clearance. Data must be compiled and paperwork submitted to various government agencies, resulting in administrative and labor expenditures. Increased delays in customs clearance also mean greater storage costs for logistics service providers.

Therefore, reducing non-tariff barriers to enhance transparency, fixing rules of origin to respond to global changes in production, and simplifying and standardizing customs procedures to facilitate trade are all additional key points to the AEC Blueprint, as is the establishment of the Asean Single Window (ASW).

This last goal, however, is contingent on each member state setting up its own National Single Window (NSW), something only the Asean-6 have completed so far. The establishment of NSWs is important because, once in place, they allow traders to submit one set of documents or information, linking the multitude of government agencies and private-sector enterprises involved and thereby improving overall trade efficiency. The implementation of the ASW will further increase trade efficiency by coordinating among respective NSWs, allowing for both automatic preparation of documents and transmission of data intra-regionally.

Has Thailand taken adequate steps to prepare for the AEC regarding the free flow of goods? One need only look back at recent economic and trade data to illustrate the significance of implementing an NSW. The World Bank’s Doing Business 2007 report said Thailand ranked 108th out of 183 countries in the category of Trading across Borders. Its ranking jumped to 50th in 2008 and 10th in 2009, a dramatic change reflecting the adoption of a paperless customs system (e-customs) in addition to an NSW.

Other World Bank indicators further show the importance of streamlining customs procedures. From 2007 to 2009, the number of documents in Thailand required to export fell from 9 to 5 for exports (bill of lading, certificate of origin, commercial invoice, customs export declaration, and terminal handling receipts) and from 12 to 5 for imports (bill of lading, commercial invoice, customs import declaration, packing list, and terminal handling receipts for import). During the same period, the number of days and costs for exports fell from 24 and US$848 to 14 and $625 for exports and from 22 and $1,042 to 13 and $795 for imports. (The figures in the Doing Business 2012 report remain the same, with a slight reduction in import costs to $750.)

Thailand’s example clearly shows the importance of e-customs systems and NSWs in addition to multilateral trade agreements on tariffs. With the Asean-6 NSWs already in place and the CLMV working toward establishing their own, the economic future looks bright for the Asean region.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
Read More
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 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
Read More
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
Read More