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​ 

September 23, 2024
The General Department of Customs and Excise (GDCE) in Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance launched a trial phase of its Intellectual Property Rights Recordation System (IPRRS) on September 1, 2024. The system compiles necessary information and documents related to intellectual property rights in the country, enabling customs authorities to swiftly access these documents and enhance their ability to identify and intercept potential parallel imports and infringing goods at the border. This will also better facilitate ex-officio actions by customs authorities. The system is currently referred to as being in a “trial phase” to support further amendments or updates to address any potential technical errors that may arise from public use. However, the IPRRS is already fully operational. Types of Recordation Currently, the IPRRS allows two types of recordation: Intellectual property recordation is available for trademarks, geographical indications, copyrights, and related rights that are protected in Cambodia. It allows IP owners, authorized representatives, and legal representatives to record information and documents relating to such rights, including information on possible or potential counterfeit goods, with the GDCE. Recordation will give customs authorities quicker access to the information and enable them to promptly take action against potential counterfeit or infringing goods. Exclusive distributorship recordation is meant to streamline the process that takes place after the Ministry of Commerce issues a notice of the recordation of exclusive rights. Under the current practice, after receiving a copy of a notice of the recordal of an exclusive distributorship issued by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), the GDCE needs to enter the information into their system manually to enable them to promptly identify or stop potential parallel importation at the border. This reportedly causes delays in border officers’ access to the necessary information. Recordation through the IPRRS, on the other hand, allows local exclusive distributors
August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
June 7, 2024
On March 7, 2024, Laos moved to regulate the management of foreign-currency income from the exportation of goods and services. Effective March 29, 2024, Decision No. 333 (formally the Decision on Management of Income in Foreign Currency from Exportation of Goods and Services No. 333/BOL) from the Bank of Lao PDR (BOL) aims to incentivize the inflow of such foreign currency into Laos and its sale to licensed commercial banks. Decision No. 333 sets minimum required proportions for importing income in foreign currency derived from the exportation of goods and services, as well as the timeframe for doing so. It also stipulates the requirements for selling such foreign currency to commercial banks in Laos and the minimum proportions that must be sold. Importing Foreign-Currency Income Exporters must receive payments from abroad via bank transfer into a dedicated bank account designated for import-export business activities within the timeline specified in the sale-purchase agreement, but not exceeding 180 days from the date of export. Each sector must import income in foreign currency into the Lao PDR according to the minimum proportion of currency to be imported, and it must be done within the required timeframes, as specified in the table below. The ratios and timeframes are subject to change depending on the circumstances. If exporters cannot comply with the required ratio and timeline, exporters must provide relevant explanatory documents for the BOL’s consideration. Selling Foreign-Currency Income Exporters of goods and services must sell at least the minimum required proportion of their foreign-currency income (see table below) to a commercial bank in Laos. This foreign currency exchange must occur within three working days of receiving the foreign currency into the dedicated bank account in Laos. The selling rate will be determined by the prevailing rate of the commercial bank on the day
June 6, 2024
On May 30, 2024, the Department of Trade (DOT) under Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued two measures tightening restrictions on the arrival and storage of imported goods before the necessary import licenses are obtained. Newsletter No. 3/2024 declares that legal enforcement against goods arriving at ports without the requisite import licenses will commence on July 1, 2024, pursuant to the Export-Import Law, and Newsletter No. 2/2024 reduces the types of goods that may be stored in bonded warehouses without an import license. Arrival of Goods at Ports Pending Import Licenses In July 2020, the MOC had issued a notification outlining the regulations for the importation of goods requiring import licenses prior to their arrival at the ports. This notification stated that actions may be taken under the Export-Import Law against importers who deliver goods to ports before obtaining the necessary import licenses from the MOC. Subsequently, the MOC issued a similar warning to importers in 2022 and a more recent announcement dated April 5, 2024. Now with the issuance of Newsletter No. 3/2024, the DOT is preparing to strengthen its enforcement against goods arriving at ports without the necessary import license already having been obtained. Storage of Goods in Customs Warehouses In December 2023, the MOC issued Newsletter No. 16/2023, which permitted 14 categories of goods to be stored in bonded areas without an import license. However, the DOT’s Newsletter No. 2/2024 eliminated most of the items on that product list, leaving only four categories of goods: Medicines, Various electric vehicles and related accessories, Industrial raw materials and chemical raw materials for industry, and Food raw materials. This allowance is only applicable for bonded areas that comply with customs procedures for bonded warehouses. Newsletter No. 2/2024 takes effect on June 7, 2024. Starting on this date, the MOC