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​ 

November 15, 2024
Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology. The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below. Removal of Prescriptive Actions Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action. By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect. Deactivation of Domain Names Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration. Clearer Criteria for Dispute Resolution Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith. Previously,
Read More
October 21, 2024
Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression
Read More
October 2, 2024
As Thailand is a contracting state of the UN Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, international arbitral awards can, in principle, be enforced in Thailand. However, not all awards will necessarily be enforceable. The Arbitration Act BE 2545 (2002) gives courts the discretion to deny the enforcement of an award if the court determines that enforcing it would be contrary to “public order or the good morals of the people” (often referred to as “public policy”). Similarly, the Arbitration Act allows a court to set aside a domestic award if its recognition would violate public policy. This discretionary power of the court is prescribed by the law and does not require any party to make an argument on public policy grounds to trigger such power. A recent Supreme Court judgment demonstrates that a court considering an award will review the legality of the arbitral proceedings as well as the content of the award. In this case, the Supreme Court set aside an award on the grounds that it violated public policy because it was the result of arbitration that did not proceed in accordance with the relevant law. Under Thai bankruptcy law, after the Bankruptcy Court accepts a request for rehabilitation of a debtor, all civil proceedings against that debtor, including arbitration proceedings, must be stayed until the court orders otherwise or until the rehabilitation case ceases. In this matter before the Supreme Court, however, the arbitrator continued with the arbitration and went on to render an award even after the court had accepted the request for rehabilitation. The award was later challenged to be set aside on the grounds that continuing with the arbitration was against public policy. While setting aside the award was arguably unnecessary, in this case (as the relevant bankruptcy law
Read More
October 1, 2024
Three of Tilleke & Gibbins’ labor and employment specialists in Vietnam have contributed the Vietnam chapter to the newly issued Labor and Employment Disputes 2024, a comprehensive guide from Lexology Panoramic to labor and employment dispute resolution in various jurisdictions around the world. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Pre-action considerations: Key requirements, third-party funding, contingency fee arrangements Issuing a claim: Forum, territorial jurisdiction, standing, commencing claims, fees, service Defendants and legal personality: Types of claims, time limits, counterclaims Case management: Procedure, rules, amendments to claims, adding parties to proceedings, consolidating proceedings Class and collective actions: Special considerations Evidence: Witnesses, tactical considerations Interim relief: Availability, requirements Trial: Hearings conduct and typical time frames, confidentiality and public access, media reporting Elements of successful claims and burden of proof Alternative dispute resolution: Available types, requirements and expectations Enforcement: Collective employment and labor rights, enforcement of collective rights, standing Remedies and enforcement: Available remedies, assessing compensation, enforcement mechanisms Appeals: Appeal procedure and time frames, other means of challenge Update and trends: Recent cases and developments, technology developments, other issues The Vietnam chapter was authored by Truc Thi Thanh, Linh Ngoc Nguyen, and Kien Trung Trinh. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia and Thailand chapters to Labor and Employment Disputes 2024.
Read More