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

November 29, 2017

A Step Forward: Thailand Takes Dramatic Steps to Modernize Customs Laws

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Businesses involved with the Thai customs clearance process have been anxiously awaiting changes aimed at improving Thailand’s customs laws, an issue that has long been subject to discussion and sometimes contentious debate. These changes come with the passage of the Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017).

The new Act, effective November 13, 2017, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments, and seeks to address many of its shortcomings. This article highlights some of the most significant revisions to the Customs Act, with specific focus on the Act’s intent and penalty provisions and their effect on possible resolution of customs disputes through settlement.   

Streamlined Customs Appeals

Under the previous Act, the customs appeal process could sometimes take years to resolve, with importers required to post duty guarantees pending appeal and faced with no clear return deadlines. The new Act standardizes procedure and sets clear timelines for post-clearance customs audits and Board of Appeal reviews, and it imposes clear deadlines for the return of duty guarantees placed by companies during the appeals process.

Modification of the Customs Rewards System

The new Act also revises the existing rewards regime dramatically, reducing the incentive and reward amounts provided to whistleblowers and initiating a cap on the amount of rewards. For example, whistleblowers will now only receive a maximum of THB 5 million, regardless of the amount of the fine and/or settlement.

Change in Strict Liability Presumptions – Officers and Directors

Another key change to the Act is an amendment to the intent requirements for claims of customs duty evasion. Under the previous Act, section 27 presumed strict liability for all included criminal customs offenses, even where violations may have been due to error rather than intentional or negligent misconduct. The new Act, while still retaining some limited strict liability presumptions, changes the highly controversial presumption of intent for customs duty evasion claims under section 243, requiring a showing of “willful intent” or “negligence” by persons charged with duty evasion offenses.

In addition, where the charged party is a juristic entity, the new Act changes presumptions of strict liability for company officers, directors, and other authorized persons charged under the new Act. This is an important and welcome change, as it was common under the previous Act to impose charges on company representatives. This had the effect of shifting the burden of proof away from the prosecution and onto the accused to conclusively prove that he or she was not involved in the offense, had not admitted to the offense, or had acted reasonably to prevent the offense.

The new Act’s change to these strict liability presumptions is consistent with recent decisions of the Constitutional Court that have concluded that presumptions of liability for officers, directors and other persons responsible for the operations of a company are unconstitutional.

Classification and Penalties

The new Customs Act also addresses one of the most highly criticized aspects of the previous law: its criminal penalty provisions. This critical change includes reclassification of offenses and revisions to the method for calculating criminal fines.

Previously, most criminal penalties relevant to business operators were prescribed under section 27 of the Customs Act. For example, all customs offenses, including smuggling and attempting to commit a customs offense, were classified together under section 27. This offered little flexibility in punishment and frequently failed to account for the considerable differences in the range of wrongdoing by an offender. The new Act seeks to deal with this classification problem by now having penalties governed by three distinct sections: sections 242, 243, and 244.

The new Act also revises the penalty scheme to distinguish between degrees of customs offenses and prescribes new methods for calculating criminal fines.

Previously, under section 27, penalties were calculated at four times the combined price of goods plus the customs duty, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both. While some discretion existed for claims settled before reaching court, once at the trial court stage the only penalties the court could impose were the fine calculated at four times the price and/or imprisonment. Because these stringent penalties did not distinguish between types of offenses and offered the courts no discretion in calculating fines, penalties were often out of proportion with the alleged wrongdoing. This was also a major factor driving parties to seek settlement opportunities prior to trial even where there may have been little merit to the underlying claims against them.

The new section 243 applies to duty evasion and calculating criminal penalties using only the actual amount of the duty evaded. The penalty multiplier is also limited to a range of one-half to four times the base amount. Penalties can also include imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, instead of or in addition to the fine.

The new Act also introduces different degrees of penalties for different levels of offense. For example, the penalty for smuggling under section 242 prohibits importing or exporting items that have “not duly passed through customs.” The penalty is four times the price of the article including the duty, imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both. In addition, the item shall be forfeited regardless of whether the person is punished. Section 244 prohibits customs evasion (i.e., importing items for the purpose of evading “restrictions or prohibitions with respect to such article”) and imposes a penalty of THB 500,000, imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both. In addition, the court may order the article to be forfeited regardless of whether there is anyone to be punished.

Case Evaluation and Settlement

The amendments to the Thai Customs Act are expected to have a substantial impact on the evaluation of claims and whether to consider settlement. Under the previous Act, defendants faced an inflexible and excessive penalty if convicted for all classifications of offenses under Section 27, with the court’s discretion limited only to the length of prison sentence. This placed strong pressure on parties to consider customs settlement opportunities to avoid trial even where there was a strong defense to the charge.

The provisions under the new Act offer much more flexibility to an accused to carefully evaluate and consider defense and settlement options. First, the classification of the offense is taken into account in calculation of penalties. Second, the calculation method has been substantially changed and is rightfully based upon the amount of under-declaration and not the total value of the goods plus duty. Third, the court will now have the discretion to adjust monetary penalties for conviction on a case by case basis within specific guidelines. These factors will result in lower overall fines for conviction and increased court involvement in the evaluation of penalties. This, in turn, will allow the accused and their counsel the opportunity to more effectively evaluate settlement options versus electing to defend at trial.   

Conclusion

The new Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017) substantially improves the customs clearance process by improving clarity and fairness. This includes an overhaul of the penalty scheme, fundamental change to controversial strict liability presumptions, separate penalties for different types of offenses, and reduced penalties compared to the previous scheme. While there are still opportunities to improve the new Act and some existing challenges remain for companies seeking to ensure customs compliance, the new law goes a long way towards clarifying and correcting many of the shortcomings of its predecessor.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 29, 2025
Tilleke & Gibbins recently assisted Bitmain, a leading manufacturer of cryptocurrency mining hardware, in successful cancellation action lawsuits against BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks that were unlawfully registered by a local party in Indonesia. Background Founded in 2013, Bitmain is a leading manufacturer of digital currency mining servers, marketed under their BITMAIN and ANTMINER brands. The company has maintained a strong global market share, with customers in over 100 countries and regions. In Indonesia, Bitmain has held the BITMAIN trademark registration in classes 35, 36, 41, and 42 since 2018. However, the company was unable to register the trademark in other classes because a local party had already registered the mark in the desired classes. Bitmain also discovered that their ANTMINER brand had been registered by the same local party, which impeded Bitmain’s application to register the ANTMINER trademark in Indonesia. Bitmain had been using these trademarks and products worldwide long before the local party’s registration in Indonesia, and had also secured trademark registrations in various countries. However, the local party exploited Indonesia’s first-to-file principle, securing the BITMAIN and ANTMINER trademarks before Bitmain could file. This was a classic example of trademark squatting, where a party registers a foreign trademark in a jurisdiction where the original owner has not yet filed, with the intent to profit from the brand’s success. Initial Approach Upon discovering that the local party had made these trademark applications, Bitmain found that one of these applications was still in the publication period. We advised and assisted Bitmain to file opposition against the application, but this opposition was subsequently refused because the local party had already obtained identical BITMAIN trademarks in other classes. Consequently, the application was registered in the Trademark Office database. Following the unfavorable opposition decision, we initially worked with Bitmain to seek a mutually
Read More
April 25, 2025
Vietnam is on the cusp of a major judicial reform with significant implications for intellectual property (IP) litigators. A draft law, expected to be passed in mid-2025, will restructure the court system into a three-tiered judicial hierarchy while retaining the current two-tiered trial structure. The reforms include the anticipated establishment of a specialized IP court and a reallocation of jurisdiction that may fundamentally change how and where IP disputes are resolved. From 63 to 34: Fewer Provinces, Fewer Courts – But Wider Reach Under the new model, the judiciary will be organized into three levels: (i) the Supreme People’s Court, with three newly established appellate courts in Hanoi, Da Nang, and Ho Chi Minh City, (ii) the 34 provincial-level People’s Courts (following a reduction from 63 provinces to 34 due to administrative consolidation), and (iii) a newly created tier of regional-level courts (tòa án khu vực) that will replace the existing district-level courts. Each regional court will encompass several district-level courts within a province. The number of regional courts in each province will be determined based on the number of districts following a planned reduction. While the number of provincial-level courts will decrease, the newly established regional-level courts will be granted expanded jurisdiction. Notably, these courts will have first-instance jurisdiction over a broad range of civil, commercial, and administrative matters. In criminal cases, they will handle offenses punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, while more serious crimes will remain under the jurisdiction of provincial-level courts. For IP litigators, this likely means that first-instance cases, especially civil infringement disputes, will shift from the provincial level to the lower regional level. These regional courts will become the new battleground for IP enforcement. Same Two-Tier Adjudication, Different Game Board While the judicial structure is evolving, the core adjudicative framework remains unchanged:
Read More
March 6, 2025
On February 18, 2025, the Thai Senate approved an amendment to the Act on the Establishment of and Procedures for the Tax Court. This follows the July 2024 approval by the Thai cabinet and subsequent preparation of supporting secondary legislation. This important amendment to procedural law, once it takes effect, will extend the exclusive jurisdictional powers of the Tax Court to all criminal tax, customs, and excise tax claims in addition to the court’s existing jurisdiction over all such civil claims. The amendment, while now formally approved by the legislature, is awaiting the king’s signature and will take effect 180 days after its publication in the Government Gazette. Based upon its projected publication date, the amendment will likely take effect by the end of the third quarter of this year. This development is set to offer a more sophisticated Tax Court litigation process for highly specialized and often complex criminal tax and customs claims, something with which Thailand’s traditional criminal courts have struggled. It also ensures that all tax and customs matters are adjudicated before the same court, saving time, party costs, and judicial resources. This appears likely to result in more consistent adjudication of criminal tax and customs disputes, a benefit for the Thai government and party litigants alike. Any ongoing criminal tax and customs claims already commenced with the respective criminal courts on the date on which the amendment becomes effective will remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of those criminal courts. The Tax Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over all other claims. This important legislative change offers those managing or otherwise facing civil and/or criminal Thai tax or customs disputes the opportunity to more effectively plan and execute a uniform defense strategy before a single, qualified forum.
Read More
February 26, 2025
Thailand ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on December 21, 1959, with the Convention coming into force on March 20, 1960. This ratification was a significant step in aligning Thailand’s arbitration framework with international standards, facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the country. In Thailand, the enforcement of both domestic and international arbitral awards is governed by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which is based on the first version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985 (as opposed to the latest version from 2006). However, unlike Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, Thailand is not an UNCITRAL Model Law country. While Thailand’s Arbitration Act is influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, it incorporates certain local contexts that require interpretation alongside Thai court rulings. The Arbitration Act also confirms the authority of arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures, reinforcing tribunals’ power in managing disputes effectively. Additionally, the act incorporates principles from the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). This article explores the key procedural steps, timeframes, and practical challenges associated with the enforcement of arbitral awards under Thailand’s legal framework. Procedures for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Thailand The enforcement of arbitral awards in Thailand follows the procedures outlined in the Arbitration Act: Application to the competent court: Under the Arbitration Act, parties seeking enforcement must submit a petition to the Thai courts within three years of the award having become enforceable. The application must include the original or certified copies of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement, along with translations if necessary. In Thailand, the choice of court for filing the arbitral award depends on the nature of the disputed contract. If the contract concerns
Read More