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The new Act, effective November 13, 2017, repeals the outdated and controversial Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926) and its prior amendments, and seeks to address many of its shortcomings.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​ 

October 27, 2022
Under Thai bankruptcy law, a creditor can file a request for a debtor to be placed under an absolute receivership order and bankruptcy judgment. However, the debtor must be insolvent, and the debt owed to the creditor or creditors must be at least THB 1 million (for a debtor who is a natural person) or THB 2 million (for the debtor who is a juristic person). In order to know whether the latter requirement is met, the debt must be “determinable”—that is, known and monetarily quantifiable. More specifically, determinable debt is debt (up to the filing date) in an amount that can be calculated, whether the debt is payable immediately or in the future. The debt can be under a loan agreement or under a sale-and-purchase agreement. One question that sometimes comes up is whether damages arising out of termination of such an agreement are considered determinable debt. According to a number of Supreme Court precedents, if the debt (e.g., rent, fine or penalty) can be calculated as referred to in the agreement, the debt is determinable. Three of these cases are described below. Supreme Court Case No. 2653/2526 In this case, the defendant made a partial delivery of oil (i.e., not the amount fully expected) to the plaintiff, who claimed that the defendant owed them a fine of almost THB 14.9 million, calculated in accordance with the sale-and-purchase agreement for the oil. The defendant argued that the debt was not determinable because the plaintiff did not prove whether they suffered damage or not. The Supreme Court noted that the agreement for sale and purchase of oil stated clearly that if the defendant could not deliver oil to the plaintiff in full, the plaintiff had the right to terminate the agreement and fine the defendant 25 percent of the
Read More
October 19, 2022
The Factory Act B.E. 2535 (1992) is one of the most important laws regulating manufacturing businesses in Thailand. It applies to businesses either with machinery of 50 horsepower or more in total, or with a minimum of 50 workers in a facility that conducts “factory work” as defined under related ministerial regulations. The act was recently amended to extend the period of validity for factory licenses and to make other miscellaneous changes that facilitate business. However, the act’s criminal liabilities were left unchanged, and they remain a vital tool for the authorities to exert control over relevant standards and prosecute violations. Both fines and imprisonment are available as sanctions under the law. Examples of common violations of the Factory Act and their potential penalties include: Setting up and operating a factory without acquiring a license: up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to THB 200,000 (approx. USD 5,365), or both. Operating with noise level exceeding the standard set by the Ministry of Industry: a fine of up to THB 200,000. Not displaying a factory license in an open and easily visible location in the factory: a fine of up to THB 5,000 (approx. USD 134). Doing a test run of machinery prior to the start of the factory operations without notifying the authorities: a fine of up to THB 20,000. As factory activities are regulated in considerable detail, overlooking a minor change could potentially put the company at risk. The risk of violating the Factory Act increases when compliance is not a proactive policy—such as by instituting systems or safeguards to ensure adherence to the rules. Criminal Liability Violation of the Factory Act is especially a concern because criminal liability under the act is not limited to juristic persons (i.e., companies) but also applies to the director,
Read More
October 10, 2022
Thailand’s recent removal of cannabis from the list of narcotics represents a significant development for the country, and it has some human resources teams wondering whether they should prepare certain measures in order to prevent detrimental incidents from happening in their organizations. For example, some employees could still be under the influence of cannabis because they used it before coming to work. In the past, this was rarely a consideration as cannabis was clearly banned. Using cannabis or possessing cannabis inside the employer’s premises subjected employees to criminal liability including imprisonment and fines. However, now that the government has removed cannabis from the narcotics list under the Narcotics Act, such incidents are more likely to occur. This likelihood has led to concern among many employers about how they can prevent or handle these incidents. An employer does have the right to prohibit any employee from bringing cannabis inside its premises, as it is the property of the employer. The employer has the management right to do this, particularly as an employee’s use of cannabis may very well disturb other employees. But if the employer would like to set penalties for breaching the prohibition, the picture is more complicated. Employers’ Work Rules Under the Labour Protection Act (LPA), an employer who has at least 10 employees must have Thai-language work rules. These work rules must include the following items: Specification of working days, regular working hours, and rest periods; Holidays and rules for taking holidays; Rules concerning overtime work and work on holidays; Arrangements for payment of wages (i.e., schedule and location); Overtime pay, holiday pay, and holiday overtime pay; Leave and rules for taking leave; Discipline and disciplinary actions; Submission of grievances; and Termination of employment, severance pay and special severance pay. To issue or amend work rules (e.g.,
Read More
October 3, 2022
Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have led some manufacturers to reduce costs by changing production methods, designs, or machinery, or reducing the number of employees on payroll. While these strategies may reduce costs and help their business survive, they may also result to lower quality goods. In the worst case, however, these poor quality goods may cancel out or even outweigh a manufacturer’s cost savings if the products are deemed to be unsafe for consumers under Thailand’s Product Liability Act (officially the Liability for Damages Arising from Unsafe Products Act). The Product Liability Act has been in force for 14 years. However, there have been few landmark Supreme Court decisions related to it as most cases are settled before the final judgment. Consequently, most business owners have limited knowledge of the precedent cases and are unsure about what actions they can take to manage and mitigate the risk of being found liable for claims of damages due to an unsafe product. The Product Liability Act identifies several types of entrepreneurs and business operators (individuals and entities) as “potentially liable parties” (PLPs) who may be penalized under the law: Manufacturers or hirers Importers Sellers of goods for which the manufacturer, hirer, or importer cannot be identified; Any other party who uses the name, trade name, trademark, or statements of the alleged unsafe products, or acts in a manner that causes them to be seen as a manufacturer, hirer, or importer The Product Liability Act defines a “product” as any kind of movable property that has been manufactured or imported for sale—including agricultural products and electricity, but excluding those ruled out by ministerial regulations. Therefore, real estate and services are excluded from the Product Liability Act. However, real estate buyers are protected by the Civil and Commercial Code, and by the
Read More