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

June 10, 2016

Proposed Amendments to Thailand’s Trade Competition Act

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Recently, the Cabinet passed a resolution that amends Thailand’s Trade Competition Act B.E. 2542 (1999). The draft amended law has since been submitted to the National Legislative Assembly for further consideration. Businesses should be aware of and prepare for the major changes ahead, as the newly proposed law may become effective at the end of this year.

The Office of Thai Trade Competition Commission (OTCC) is the main enforcer of Thailand’s Trade Competition Act. Overall, the Act aims to regulate fair competition among business operators in the following key areas:

  • Unlawful exercise of market dominance;
  • A merger which may form a monopoly, causing unfair competition;
  • Collusion which forms a monopoly, restricting competition; and
  • Catch-all unfair trade practices.

The amended Trade Competition Act introduces more stringent and extensive provisions as well as higher penalties for violations. The Act, as currently drafted, will introduce the following key amendments:

The definition of “Business Operator” will be broadened.  Under the draft, “Business Operator” now includes affiliate companies as well as group companies. If a company within a company group engages in anticompetitive practices, the OTCC would focus its investigation on the entire group of companies, not only the individual company.

Violations committed outside Thailand are punishable.  Any violations of the Act which are committed outside of Thailand, whether partly or fully, that have an anticompetitive effect on Thailand would be punishable in Thailand. As a result, companies that previously relied on territorial divides to engage in anticompetitive behavior from overseas which have an anticompetitive effect on Thailand could now be subject to punishment in Thailand.

OTCC must be notified of certain merger activities.  The OTCC will be notified of merger activities that may cause a substantive reduction in competition prior to the merger, and the relevant financial statements will be continuously filed at the OTCC for it to monitor the effect of the merger for three consecutive years.

Criminal penalties will be adjusted.  There will be criminal penalties for certain violations of the Act. A fine may amount to 20 percent of a company’s revenue in the year of the violation. This has the potential to result in significantly higher fines. If there is a violation of the OTCC’s order, administrative sanctions may be imposed and the OTCC will determine the fine.

The OTCC, at its discretion, may decrease the fines imposed on business operators that are not the main actors in collusion or restriction of competition causing severe impact to the market, if they cooperate with the OTCC to provide substantial evidence of the violation.

State enterprises will be subject to the Act.  Under the current Act, state enterprises were immune from the provisions of the Act. Under the amended Act, however, they will not be immune unless they fall within exceptions that are granted to state enterprises in the fields of national security, public benefit, common interest, and public utility.

State enterprises that are subject to the Act and engage in anticompetitive practices may incur both criminal and civil penalties. This is because the private sector would be competing with these state enterprises.

The definition of “Market Dominant Operator” will be reviewed periodically. Under the existing Trade Competition Act, the criteria to be classified as a “Market Dominant Operator” (MDO) are as follows:

  • Any Business Operator in any particular goods or services market which has a market share in the previous year of 50 percent or more and has a sales turnover of at least THB 1 billion; or
  • Any Business Operator falling within the top three Business Operators in any particular goods or services market which together have a market share in the previous year of 75 percent and sales turnover of at least THB 1 billion (unless one of these three Business Operators has a market share in the previous year of lower than 10 percent or sales turnover of less than THB 1 billion).

Under the draft law, this longstanding definition of “Market Dominant Operator” (MDO) will be reviewed and revised at least once every five years. The OTCC is empowered to determine the criteria to be classified as an MDO.

If a Business Operator is classified as an MDO, its obligations and scrutiny under the Act would be higher. For example, Section 25 of the Act, which prohibits unreasonably fixing or maintaining purchase or sale prices of goods or fees for services, only applies to MDOs. Business Operators should therefore keep abreast of the Act’s amendments to determine whether or not they are classified as an MDO, as they may be subject to more provisions.

Companies face much heftier fines for violations of Thailand’s Trade Competition Act. Business owners should therefore ensure that they fully understand and comply with the amended Act. The OTCC is undergoing structural reform to increase its impartiality and independence in terms of personnel. The prospect of an increased budget for the OTCC is also on the horizon, which will enable the OTCC to more effectively enforce trade competition laws and regulations in Thailand.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 26, 2022
Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) has extended its previously announced period for reduction of import duty on imported raw and essential materials for battery manufacturing for electric vehicles and other applications. The BOI’s announcement No. 5/2565 dated August 8, 2022, extended the reduction period to a maximum of five years. The BOI’s promoted activities list includes two battery-manufacturing business activities: Activity 4.8.3.1 – Battery manufacturing Activity 5.2.6.1 – High energy density battery manufacturing Qualifying battery manufacturers who have cell or module manufacturing processes are eligible for 90% import duty reductions on raw and essential materials that cannot be produced in Thailand. These reductions will be available on an annual basis, and are renewable for five years in total—up from the original two years. Existing projects (i.e., those which have the original two-year duration in their BOI certificate) can also benefit from the extension by preparing a project amendment form, along with a clarification letter and supporting documents, for submission to the BOI office. For more details on these customs duty reductions, or on any aspect of investment promotion in Thailand, please contact Charuwan Charoonchitsathian at [email protected] or +66 2056 5657, or Napassorn Lertussavavivat at [email protected] or +66 2056 5662.
August 25, 2022
On July 27, 2022, Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Newsletter No. 8/2022 to effectively ban foreign companies and foreign joint ventures from exporting value-added beans, corn, and sesame. This newsletter repealed Newsletter No. 2/2020, which had prescribed the criteria for beans, corn, and sesame to be considered “value-added” crops. These criteria had to be fulfilled in order for these commodities to be exported in accordance with Notification No. 24/2019, which had permitted foreign companies and foreign joint ventures to purchase seven categories of commodities from local manufacturers for export, subject to certain terms and conditions. These include: Meat and fish; Value-added crops; Pulp and paper; Seeds; Refined metals; Semi-finished or finished valued-added fruit products; and Timber-based furniture. With the repeal of the conditions in Newsletter No. 2/2020, foreign exporters are left with no reference criteria for how to achieve “value-added” status for beans, corn, and sesame, and thus will not be able to submit a complete application for the necessary export license. However, exportation of the other items in the list above remains unaffected and open to foreign exporters who meet the applicable requirements. The MOC explained their decision to revoke the permitted criteria by noting that some foreign companies were not actually producing beans, corn, and sesame that fulfilled the criteria for value-added status as laid out in Newsletter No. 2/2020, but were falsely exporting their goods as “value-added crops.” The revocation of the export criteria for beans, corn, and sesame took immediate effect. For more details on these export restrictions, or on any aspect of importation and exportation regulations in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
August 23, 2022
Indemnification clauses are common contractual provisions in many jurisdictions including Thailand, but enforcing them can be challenging in the eyes of Thai law. In general, to “indemnify” means to hold another party free of responsibility for a potential risk or loss. When one party (i.e., the “indemnitor”) indemnifies another party (i.e., the “indemnitee”), the indemnitor is obligated to pay or compensate the indemnitee for any liabilities or losses (within the scope agreed in the contract). In this way, an indemnification clause can be a useful provision to shift responsibility for potential risks from one party to another. In some jurisdictions, “indemnity” includes the recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred by the indemnitee. It may even carry with it the duty to defend or fund the defense of any claim brought against the indemnitee. If that is the case, even though the contract does not say so, the indemnitor would have to hire an attorney and pay the legal fees for the indemnitee. In contracts that contain an indemnification clause, the indemnity would typically include the duty to defend. Let’s use a case example to elaborate this point. In this hypothetical case, a supplier of machinery agrees to indemnify and defend a retailer against claims from the retailer’s customer in the event that a purchased machine becomes defective. As a result, besides being responsible for the damages that the retailer may suffer based on contract law or negligence, the supplier must also pay for the lawyers to defend the retailer if the customer decides to sue. In Thailand, this kind of indemnification clause may not be enforceable. Unlike contract rules in many jurisdictions, Thai contract law is silent on “contractual indemnity.” It is commonly understood in Thailand (and confirmed by Supreme Court decision 7943/2542) that “indemnity” means “compensation” under section 222
August 4, 2022
Cosmetics have become an essential feature of the modern lifestyle led by many consumers in Cambodia. Every day, a wide range of new cosmetic brands, variants, and formats enter the Cambodian market, catering to a growing consumer base. The market generally relies on the import of foreign cosmetic brands, making Cambodia an attractive market for overseas cosmetics companies, but local brands are on the rise as well. Alongside the significant growth of the cosmetics market in Cambodia, and the Royal Government’s continuing push to increase consumer protection in Cambodia, in 2022, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued Prakas No. 0064 on the Requirements for Cosmetic Distribution (the Prakas). The Prakas applies to both locally manufactured and imported cosmetics, and both individual and businesses that trade in cosmetics. The Prakas aims to regulate cosmetics and cosmetic business activities, to ensure that cosmetics distributed in Cambodia are of good quality and safe for use.  The key points contained in the Prakas are summarized below. Legal Obligations for Trading Cosmetics Any person trading in cosmetics, including wholesale or retail, and those that offer cosmetics as gifts or for testing, must ensure that the products are safe and meet the legal labelling requirements. Anyone trading cosmetics must respect the Law on Consumer Protection, with the Prakas highlighting key aspects of that law and referring to the applicable penalties under that law. Online sellers of cosmetics must obtain an additional approval letter (for individuals) or a license (for legal entities) to operate an online business, issued by the MOC. In addition, they require a certificate for providing online services from the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications. Interestingly, the Prakas does not refer to the cosmetic business licensing required under regulations issued by the Ministry of Health. As the Prakas does not outright contradict these