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 18, 2021

Thai Customs Department Temporarily Eases Restrictions on Requesting Stay of Duty Payments

Subscribe to Updates

Sensitive to the difficulties many business entities and individuals are experiencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Thai Customs Department recently implemented an important measure providing importers and exporters with the opportunity to temporarily stay pending customs duty obligations. This measure, which addresses procedures and conditions for requests to stay outstanding duty payments during the COVID-19 pandemic, was included in Announcement of Customs Department No. 103/2564, dated July 1, 2021, issued under sections 37 and 38 of the Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017).

Background

Under the Customs Act, importers and exporters have the right to petition the Customs Department for a stay of duty payments at various stages of the customs consideration process. For example, this right extends both to petitioners who are in the process of appealing a customs duty assessment, and to those who have filed claims in the Thai courts challenging a Customs Board of Appeals decision.

On December 29, 2017, Main Announcement of the Customs Act on Principal, Methods and Conditions for Requesting a Stay of Outstanding Duty Payments No. 189/2560 was issued, stipulating that a party who appealed to the Customs Board of Appeals regarding customs duty assessment (or submitted a further complaint with the Thai courts challenging the board’s decision) can request a stay of payment of outstanding duties within thirty days from the date of filing an appeal regarding customs duty assessment.

In mid-2020, the Customs Department responded to the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic by issuing relief measures—first a short-term easing of certain documentation requirements, followed by a longer-lasting (until September 30, 2021) extension of the deadline for requesting review of import duty penalties, fines, and surcharges on outstanding import duty amounts.

Relief for Payment of Customs Duty

With the pandemic still being acutely felt in Thailand in 2021, the Customs Department turned their attention to relief for importers and exporters who need more flexibility in meeting their duty payment obligations. In this regard, the recent announcement of July 1, 2021, temporarily replaces the previous strict thirty-day deadline for requests for stay for those petitioners who submit a request during the period July 1 through September 30, 2021. Importers and exporters who have filed a duty assessment appeal with the Board of Appeals may submit a request for stay directly to the customs entity that issued the official letter of assessment. Meanwhile, those who have filed a complaint with the Thai court challenging a Customs Board of Appeals decision on duty assessment may submit a stay request directly to the Legal Division of the Customs Department.

In addition to providing this time for petitioners seeking to temporarily stay duty payment, the recent announcement offers procedural flexibility for submitting a security deposit (covering the duty assessment amount) upon requesting a temporary stay. According to the regulations in place since December 2017, only a petitioner who is also an “authorized economic operator” (AEO) could submit a credit-based letter of guarantee as security with the request to stay outstanding duty payment in an amount to cover the duty assessment. Under the temporary relief measures, all petitioners—regardless of their AEO status—can deposit a credit-based letter of guarantee. A second option for providing the security deposit is for a petitioner to submit the previous bank guarantee from the customs clearance stage of importation or exportation, along with a certified statement from that bank allowing re-use of the guarantee for the outstanding duty payments.

The timeframe for considering requests to stay payment of outstanding duties remains unchanged—the director general of the Customs Department will approve or deny a request within fifteen days (plus an additional fifteen-day allowance if necessary and authorized). Due to statutory prescription periods for customs assessment liabilities, all requests for stay approvals are limited to outstanding duty assessments that are less than nine years from the importation or exportation date.

This announcement allowing temporary stay requests provides more flexible stay rules during a challenging period for Thailand and the region. It represents the Customs Department’s recognition of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on importers and exporters, as well as the vital importance they play in the supply chain. As Thailand and its neighbors continue to experience the economic burden of the ongoing pandemic, the Customs Department will reevaluate whether to extend the measure beyond the current September 30, 2021, time period.

Related Professionals

Practices

Customs and International Trade

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More
May 22, 2026
Thailand recently concluded the latest round of high-level trade discussions with its US trade counterparts. In addition to addressing concerns over claimed human rights abuses, forced labor, and the current trade imbalance with the US, one critical area of focus was US allegations of transshipment in Thailand’s import-export sector. Transshipment is the practice of routing goods through a third country to circumvent duties or tariffs on goods exported to the receiving country. Specifically, the US alleges that many Thai exporters declare a Thai origin for goods to qualify for preferential duties or exemptions without meeting the legal standards for establishing Thai product origin—an act that it claims masks the goods’ true origin. This is a particular matter of concern for US authorities, since transshipment is perceived to be a means by which Thai origin is claimed for many Chinese goods exported abroad. This perception affects a wide range of otherwise legitimate Thai-origin goods. The Thai trade delegation, led by Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Suphajee Suthumpun, met with counterparts from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on May 3–6. A subsequent team of Thai trade representatives, led by the Thai Ministry of Commerce vice minister, met with the USTR on May 13–14. These discussions directly impact the trade enforcement environment in Thailand, potentially affecting numerous business operators involved in the manufacture, import, or export of goods and components. Thailand’s position is that it strictly adheres to and enforces the legal standards for determining qualifying origin and that allegations of transshipment are largely unjustified. Nonetheless, it has agreed to increase its focus on trade compliance and enforcement in Thailand in return for commitments on reciprocal trade benefits with the US, including consideration of tariff exemptions on certain critical Thai imports into the US. Notable Outcomes There
Read More