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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Customs and International Trade

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 8, 2026
The global trade environment for Thai exporters in 2026 has shifted significantly. Recent enforcement developments in both the United States and the European Union show a clear shift in trade policy: regulators are no longer focused solely on tariff levels, but also on whether products genuinely originate where exporters claim they do. Adding to this complexity, the US Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision striking down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs has upended the legal basis for a major pillar of US tariff policy, creating significant legal and commercial uncertainty for exporters worldwide, including in Thailand. For Thai companies integrated into regional supply chains, this change carries material implications. Although the IEEPA-based US reciprocal tariffs have been struck down, intensified circumvention enforcement continues under separate legal authorities, and the administration has signaled its intent to reimpose tariffs under alternative statutory frameworks, while EU authorities are using anti-circumvention investigations where trade patterns shift. In both jurisdictions, the decisive issue is whether manufacturing in Thailand constitutes substantial transformation under applicable rules of origin. Such origin determinations increasingly drive duty exposure, audit risk and commercial disputes. In 2026, the ability to defend a product’s Thai origin is not merely a procedural step, it is central to preserving market access in the US and EU. Impact Of US Circumvention Enforcement and an Uncertain Tariff Landscape Following the 2025 Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, Thailand saw a shift in its tariff relationship with the US. A substantial range of Thai-origin goods were subject to a 19% reciprocal tariff under the IEEPA. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the use of IEEPA for tariffs has removed the legal basis for that rate. The Administration has indicated it intends to pursue replacement tariffs under other statutory authorities,
Read More
April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
Read More
April 9, 2026
In March 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated two significant investigations under Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 that directly affect Thailand. The first investigation examines overproduction in manufacturing sectors caused by government support or policies that distort normal market conditions across 16 economies, including Thailand. The second investigation, launched the following day, targets 60 economies, also including Thailand, for alleged failures to impose and effectively enforce prohibitions on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Taken together, these investigations represent a significant escalation in US trade enforcement and create substantial risk for Thai exporters, manufacturers, and businesses with supply chain connections to the United States. The investigations are moving on an accelerated timeline, with the USTR indicating that potential trade measures, including tariffs, could be imposed as early as July 2026. This article provides an overview of the investigations, highlights their specific implications for Thailand, and outlines practical considerations for affected businesses. Section 301 as a Trade Enforcement Tool Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the USTR authority to investigate foreign acts, policies, or practices that are considered unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict US commerce. If the USTR concludes that such practices exist, the statute allows a wide range of remedial measures, including the imposition of tariffs, nontariff trade restrictions, and negotiated agreements with foreign governments. Unlike other trade authorities, Section 301 does not set limits on the level of tariffs or the duration of measures, giving the USTR considerable flexibility to address perceived trade imbalances or unfair practices. Historically, Section 301 investigations take up to a year to complete. In this instance, however, the USTR has indicated that the investigations will proceed on a much faster timetable, with an unofficial target of concluding by July 2026.
Read More
April 1, 2026
On March 30, 2026, Thailand’s Customs Department announced a strategy to raise import duties on a broad range of consumer goods—including plastic items and electronics accessories—to their maximum statutory ceilings, which often sit at 30% or 40%. Many of these goods currently benefit from promotional or incentive rates as low as 5%. For importers, e-commerce platforms, and logistics providers, this development demands immediate attention. While these increases generally require cabinet approval, they do not require full parliamentary amendment of the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, as the Customs director-general and the finance minister hold delegated authority to adjust rates within existing statutory bounds. Businesses should not assume that the legislative process will provide significant lead time before higher rates take effect. Death of the De Minimis: Abolishing the THB 1,500 Loophole This “ceiling-rate” policy, which is designed to equalize the landed cost of foreign goods with the domestic production costs of Thai manufacturers, builds on a sweeping set of customs reforms that have already begun to reshape Thailand’s trade environment. The foundation of this new regime was laid on January 1, 2026, when Thailand formally abolished the longstanding THB 1,500 duty exemption for small imported parcels under Customs Notification No. 219/2568. Every imported item is now subject to VAT and applicable import duties for its declared value, regardless of parcel size or transaction amount. By narrowing the scope of exemptions previously granted to low-value goods under the Customs Tariff Decree B.E. 2530, the government has made clear that the era of tax-free cross-border micro-imports is over. Three-Phased Strategy and Legal Modernization The March 30 announcement is the second phase of a three-part regulatory roadmap: Immediate enforcement: The removal of the THB 1,500 loophole and the imposition of VAT on all parcels, effective January 1, 2026. Tariff realignment: The current
Read More