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

August 26, 2016

Reforming Thailand’s Trade Competition Commission

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Thailand’s Trade Competition Act has long been perceived as a paper tiger since its conception in 1999. With the release of the new Trade Competition Bill, which may be amended, and the Trade Competition Commission pointing out violations by energy drink manufacturers, things may be about to change.

Recently, a competitor of an energy drinks operator reportedly filed a complaint with the Commission. In the Commission’s report, the business operator, which enjoyed a market dominant position, had refused to supply retailers that were selling energy drinks produced by its competitors. This is a potential breach of several sections of the Trade Competition Act. Specifically, the business operator allegedly unreasonably fixed compulsory conditions, which restricted opportunities to purchase or sell goods from other business operators, in violation of Section 25 of the Act. This can also be considered as an unfair trade practice in violation of Section 29 of the Act. In the event that the energy drinks manufacturer is found guilty, penalties including a maximum imprisonment term of three years and/or a fine not exceeding THB 6 million may be imposed.

The reported facts in this energy drinks case are similar to a widely reported motorcycle distribution case, in which the period of prescription expired in 2013. Three companies filed a complaint against a company that allegedly violated the Act in exercising its market dominance by imposing restrictive sales conditions. One complainant was a sole agent/manufacturer of motorcycles. The complaint claimed that the complainants were required to sell only the alleged violator’s motorcycle brand. The Commission found that the alleged violator’s actions breached Section 29 of the Act. Later on, in early 2013, the Office of the Attorney-General issued a notice to the Commission instructing that the claim should not be filed against the alleged violator because of insufficient evidence, and the alleged violator’s actions did not directly affect sales of the motorcycles. The matter was concluded.

The recent energy drinks case differs from the motorcycle case, because in the energy drinks case, the new Commission has shown its determination to enforce the Act. Under the watchful eye of the current Commission, we may see more vigorous enforcement of the Act.

Attorney-General and Public Prosecutor Enforcement Roles

Public prosecutors play a crucial role in enforcing the Act. If the public prosecutor opts not to prosecute the case, the Commission’s Chairperson can veto the public prosecutor’s non-prosecution order. The Commission’s Chairperson would then provide the criminal file, together with his or her opposing opinion, to the Attorney-General for a final decision.

Legislative Efforts to Reform the Commission’s Structure

Major provisions concerning the Commission’s organization have been introduced in the draft Trade Competition Bill. Under Section 5 of the current Act, many Ministries have influence over the Commission (e.g., in financial matters), and therefore make joint decisions. However, under the new Bill, the Prime Minister is the sole person in charge of selecting members of the Commission, with the Cabinet’s approval.

Separation from the Private Sector

Previously, Section 6 of the Act required that at least half—6 out of 12—of Commission members were appointed from the private sector (e.g., nominations by the Thai Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Thai Industries). As a result, many private enterprises could become engaged in the workings of the Commission. However, this requirement has been removed from the Bill.

Term and Removal

Under Sections 15-16 of the Bill, each member will have a maximum of two terms, and each term will last six years. Also, there is an additional provision whereby the Senate will have the power to remove any member from their position should there be any violations of anti-corruption law. This provision supports the impartiality of the Commission.

Commission’s Leverage against Non-Prosecution Orders

Section 27 of the Bill ensures that certain leverage is provided to the Commission against non-prosecution orders rendered by the Attorney-General. Additional power, other than the power to veto, is provided to the Commission so that if the Attorney-General finds that the opinion of the Commission is insufficient to pursue court proceedings, the Attorney-General will inform the Commission of the insufficient grounds to allow the Commission to address these issues at once. In this event, the Chairperson of the Commission and the Attorney-General will form a joint working group, with an equal number of appointed representatives from each side, in order to complete the evidentiary requirements. Finally, the Attorney-General will proceed to file the case in court.

The Commission now has higher leverage against the Attorney-General to pursue cases that are worthy of being filed in court, without having to rely on the absolute discretion of the Attorney-General.

Budget and Finance

Under Sections 33-35 of the Bill, additional monetary support is provided to the Commission, which is independent from the general government budget. Independent funding would empower the Commission to conduct investigations and market analysis more effectively, which require a lot of financial resources.

Independence of Secretariat

The Secretariat—the chief of the Commission who is responsible for the Commission’s performance of duties—as well as the Secretariat’s parents, spouse, children, or parents of the spouse will not have conflicts of interest with the Commission under Sections 49 and 51 of the Bill. The Secretariat is not allowed to hold any position in any company for two years after their removal from a position. In addition, under Section 38(3) of the Bill, there is a special provision requiring the Secretariat to be able to perform his or her duties on a full-time basis.

Reforming the Commission is as important as reforming the trade competition laws. Under the new Bill, the Commission should become more independent. Legislative efforts are now focused on ensuring the law can be enforced, and the Commission has suggested that cases for breaching competition law could reach the court for the very first time in the near future.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Customs and International Trade

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 20, 2026
The past year has been an important one for the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT). With a right combination of commissioners bringing expertise in competition law, investigations, administrative procedures, court processes, and sector-focused industries, the regulator has pushed forward with stronger enforcement efforts and closer cooperation with both domestic and international stakeholders. In 2025 the TCCT participated in major international initiatives—including peer reviews conducted by the OECD and ASEAN. These efforts reflect Thailand’s ongoing ambition to elevate its competition law framework to meet international expectations and build trust among global communities. There was also significant momentum around potential amendments to the Trade Competition Act (TCA). Political parties, the TCCT, the private sector, and civil society all agreed that the 2017 law could benefit from clearer rules and more effective enforcement tools. Although a draft amendment passed an initial reading and moved to a subcommittee for revision, the process stalled following the dissolution of Parliament. At the same time, the TCCT invested heavily in strengthening its own internal capabilities. It expanded collaborations with organizations such as the OECD, ASEAN authorities, the EU, and counterparts in Japan and Australia. The TCCT also published sector-specific market studies, including on digital platforms and e‑marketplaces and on cold‑rolled steel. The regulator also shared draft guidelines aimed at regulating online platforms—although these have not yet been finalized. What’s Next for the TCCT? Looking ahead, the TCCT is set to keep building on the momentum it has created and be a more active, transparent, and practical regulator. It is likely to become even more visible in the public sphere as it steps up efforts to raise awareness about competition law, especially among businesses that may not traditionally follow or be familiar with such regulatory developments. Digital markets, including e‑commerce and online marketplaces, will remain a
Read More
February 16, 2026
On February 4, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released a draft notification outlining updated criteria and procedures for requesting advance decisions under section 59 of the Trade Competition Act (TCA). This draft is now open for public comment through the TCCT website until March 5, 2026. Section 59 of the TCA lets businesses proactively ask the TCCT to review whether a planned activity, such as a business strategy, marketing program, or other proposed conduct, could potentially violate the TCA. The major limitation is that this mechanism cannot be used for merger‑control matters. The new draft aims to make the process more accessible and user‑friendly. Key updates include allowing for electronic submission of requests and establishing a shorter notification timeframe, requiring the TCCT to explain any delay to the 60‑day review period within 7 days instead of the previous 15 days. For many businesses, this preliminary consultation tool is an effective way to reduce regulatory and competition‑law risks. Businesses that have taken advantage of this process have found that obtaining an advance decision can provide meaningful legal certainty, as the decision is binding once issued.
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 14, 2026
Myanmar’s Ministry of Finance and Revenue has introduced new procedures allowing companies to temporarily export raw materials and semifinished goods for overseas processing before reimporting the finished products for domestic sale. The procedures are detailed in Notification No. 143/2025, which was issued on December 23, 2025, taking effect on February 1, 2026. The new procedures define outward processing as the temporary export of domestically circulating or manufactured goods for manufacturing, processing, treatment, or repair abroad, followed by reimportation. Core elements include the temporary export of the goods, the continuity and identifiability of the exported and reimported items, and the assessment of duties based on the value added abroad. Upon reimportation, customs duty, commercial tax, specific goods tax, and advance income tax are applied only to the foreign value added, rather than to the full value of the goods. No advance income tax applies at the time of export. Before these procedures, Myanmar lacked a unified outward processing system. The closest existing practice was the “repair and return” mechanism, used for goods such as machinery parts that required repair abroad. The definition covers a broader range of operations than simple repair. Eligible Goods and Shipment Points Outward processing is permitted only for goods that satisfy specific eligibility criteria. The scheme expressly excludes: Goods that are prohibited from export or import Goods that can be processed domestically within Myanmar Precious stones Goods that would lose their essential characteristics after processing Export and reimport activities related to outward processing must be conducted through designated ports, airports, or dry ports located within Yangon Region. Eligible Companies Only companies that are legally registered in Myanmar and authorized as exporters or importers—specifically, businesses holding a valid export/import registration certificate—are eligible to engage in outward processing activities. The Myanmar Customs Department serves as the governing authority
Read More