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

July 8, 2020

Thai Customs Offers Extension for Business Operators to Join One Stop Service Project

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s Customs Department has extended the deadline for business operators to pay all outstanding taxes and import duties at the Post-Clearance Audit Division of the Customs Department. The Customs Department has also extended the deadline for requesting review of import duty penalties, fines, and surcharges on outstanding import duty amounts until September 30, 2021—a significant postponement of the previous deadline of April 30, 2020.

This extension is meant to ease the burden of honest business operators who have paid incorrect or incomplete import duty and tax, giving them a chance to review previous import duty and tax payments and take steps to address underpayment. This extension is under the Customs Department’s One Stop Service project, which allows business operators to pay outstanding taxes and import duties through the One Stop Service Center at the Post-Clearance Audit Division office of the Customs Department in Bangkok.

The One Stop Service project was originally open to businesses from April 1, 2018, to April 30, 2019, during which more than 150 business operators joined and met the required qualifications. In response to this success, the Customs Department agreed to open a second period from May 15, 2019, to April 30, 2020, which has now been extended to September 30, 2021.

One Stop Service Project

This is an important matter for any person involved with incomplete duty or tax, as section 202 of Customs Act B.E. (2560) 2017 stipulates that submitting incorrect or incomplete declarations, documentation, or other duty-related information is punishable by a fine of up to THB 500,000.

Typically, import duty penalties, fines, and surcharges on outstanding import duty—including value added tax (VAT) surcharges and penalties—are payable by business operators without review. Business operators who join the One Stop Service scheme, however, will be given the right to review these charges.

The One Stop Service project gives business operators who have paid incomplete tax and duty, despite operating in good faith, an opportunity to rectify payments themselves by submitting a letter to the project coordinator (i.e., the Post-Clearance Audit Division) with the required documents. After review, if there is no evidence that the business operator was dishonest, the business operator will receive the right to review the import duty penalty, fine, and surcharge on the outstanding import duty and petition the Customs Department to consider waiving or reducing the applicable charges. Nevertheless, business operator still have the obligation to pay all charges that are not covered by this project, such as VAT surcharges and related penalties.

However, any importer who has smuggled items into Thailand (with clear evidence of dishonest or fraudulent evasion of the duty or tax owed), imported prohibited or restricted items, or imported goods that violate intellectual property rights, is not eligible to join the project. Ongoing post-audit inspections, investigations, or prosecutions by the Department of Investigation, the Economic Crime Division, or another authorized entity, are also ineligible for the One Stop Service, as are any cases currently under consideration of the Board of Appeal or undergoing litigation procedures.

The Customs Department’s One Stop Service project is greatly beneficial to business operators who have operated in good faith but have ended up reporting incorrect or incomplete amounts, and the project indicates the Customs Department’s desire to foster positive relationships with business operators by easing some of the challenges associated with customs. If the Customs Department further loosens their restrictions on participation in the project—such as by allowing inclusion of cases undergoing post-audit inspection or investigation or extending to cover other charges–they would provide more opportunities for settlement and continue to build up good relations with business operators.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Customs and International Trade

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 2, 2026
On July 24, 2026, a new 12.5% Section 301 tariff took effect on most imports from Thailand into the United States. The tariff was imposed by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, following a finding that Thailand had failed to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on imports of goods produced with forced labor. The new tariff replaced the temporary 10% Section 122 surcharge that had applied since February 24, 2026, following the US Supreme Court’s invalidation of the prior tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The 12.5% tariff is not the only potential source of additional US duties on Thai-origin goods. Thailand is also subject to a separate Section 301 investigation concerning structural excess manufacturing capacity, which could result in additional duties. Unlike the Section 122 surcharge, which was capped at 15% and limited to 150 days, Section 301 provides a more flexible framework for imposing and maintaining trade measures. Section 301 actions are generally subject to a four-year termination rule but may continue following a review if continuation is requested. The new tariff therefore represents a potentially longer-term change in the tariff treatment of Thai-origin goods entering the US market. This article explains the legal and policy developments that led to the new tariff, how the Section 301 tariff differs from the tariff regimes that preceded it, Thailand’s response and ongoing negotiations with the United States, and the practical implications for businesses that manufacture, export, import, or distribute goods between Thailand and the United States. From IEEPA to Section 122 to Section 301 IEEPA Era (April 2025–February 2026) Beginning in April 2025, the US administration imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), invoking national emergencies relating to trade
Read More
September 28, 2026
Thailand has expanded the mandatory use of the Electronic Government Procurement (e-GP) system to cover submissions of procurement appeals to all government agencies subject to the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (Government Procurement Act). The expansion, which was set out in an official circular dated September 16, 2026, from the Public Procurement and Supplies Administrative Ruling Committee, takes effect on October 1, 2026. Notable Changes Under the expanded framework, bidders challenging an e-bidding or selective-method procurement result must file their appeal exclusively through e-GP within seven working days of the result being announced by the Comptroller General’s Department. While the system accepts filings around the clock during that window, submissions on the final day must be fully completed by 16:30 according to the e-GP system clock—merely starting a draft or uploading materials before the cutoff does not count as a confirmed submission. Government agencies that disagree with an appeal, in whole or in part, will also report their findings and supporting documents to the Appeals Committee through e-GP using the prescribed Appeal Opinion Report, also within seven working days of receipt. Withdrawals of appeals must likewise follow prescribed e-GP steps that vary depending on whether the matter is still under agency review, has been forwarded to the Appeals Committee, or has already been resolved. Excluded Categories Certain categories of procurement are not subject to the new guidelines on filing appeals electronically. These include: Procurement of supplies for confidential government use. Procurement conducted by government agencies operating overseas where the bidder is a foreign legal entity with no legal representative in Thailand, or where the bidder is a non-Thai national. Consulting service procurement under chapter 7 of the Government Procurement Act Design or construction supervision procurement under chapter 8 of the Government Procurement These exclusions apply
Read More
September 28, 2026
On July 22, 2026, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 292/2026/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the Law on Foreign Trade Management (Decree 292). Decree 292 came into effect on September 5, 2026, replacing Decree No. 69/2018/NND-CP, and introduces several important changes to Vietnam’s foreign trade regime. Of particular relevance is the addition to the list of goods prohibited from importation of “products and goods extracted, produced, or manufactured wholly or partly through forced labor by enterprises, countries, or territories in accordance with relevant international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a party.” This new prohibition introduces forced-labor considerations into Vietnam’s import compliance framework and may have practical implications for how businesses manage related risks across their operations and supply chains. Implementation of the New Prohibition According to Decree 292, the minister or head of the relevant ministerial-level agency is responsible for publishing the detailed list and corresponding harmonized system (HS) codes for each category of goods prohibited from export or import under its purview. Goods involving forced labor fall under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, as of the date of this article, no corresponding list has been published specifying the goods to which the forced-labor prohibition applies, leaving businesses without official guidance on how the prohibition will be applied or enforced in practice. Nevertheless, this absence does not suspend the prohibition’s application. As Decree 292 has already taken effect, goods involving forced labor remain subject to the general legal framework applicable to goods prohibited from importation. In particular, Decree 169/2026/ND-CP provides for administrative penalties for the importation or transportation of prohibited goods into Vietnam. Depending on the nature and circumstances of the violation, criminal liability may also arise under the Criminal Code. In practice, enforcement is likely to depend on the
Read More
September 23, 2026
Arbitration under Thai law rests on consent. Section 11 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This may also be satisfied by communications, an unchallenged allegation in pleadings, or incorporation by reference to a document containing an arbitration clause. A non-signatory cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to arbitrate merely because it participated in the transaction, received a benefit, or belongs to the corporate group of a signatory. Thai law nevertheless permits arbitration agreements and awards to affect third parties indirectly in limited circumstances. Under section 24, an arbitration clause is separable from the main contract; the invalidity of the contract does not invalidate the clause. In Supreme Court Judgment No. 3918/2563, an apparent sales contract concealed a construction contract and was void under the Civil and Commercial Code. However, the concealed construction contract and written arbitration clause remained effective. The tribunal had jurisdiction, and its award was enforceable under the Arbitration Act. Under the Arbitration Act, when a claim or liability is validly transferred, the transferee is bound by the related arbitration agreement. This includes assignment, transfer of obligations, legal succession, and subrogation. Depending on the facts and contract and agency law, consent may arise through execution by an authorized agent, ratification, assumption of obligations, or conduct accepting the contract and its arbitration clause. Thai law respects separate corporate personality. The group-of-companies doctrine has no statutory basis under the Arbitration Act, while alter egos or sham allegations require compelling evidence and an identifiable legal basis. Supreme Court Judgment No. 9161/2568 illustrates the procedural treatment of non-signatories. A consultancy contract required LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai. When the employer sued a consultant and his spouse in Thailand concerning a housing loan, the court disposed of
Read More