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

May 16, 2014

Thailand’s Customs Reward System: The Slow March Toward Reform

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

In recent years, Thailand’s customs regime has come under increased international and domestic scrutiny. One reason is that Thailand remains one of the few countries that presume strict criminal liability for importers and their representatives, even where an under-declaration of customs duty is the result of a mistake and/or negligence.

With penalties for customs duty avoidance including imprisonment of up to ten years and fines of up to four times the actual value of the goods, there is widespread concern about both the constitutionality of the strict liability model and its impact on foreign direct investment in Thailand. The concern, however, does not lie merely with the legal presumption of criminal liability.

An equally significant challenge facing Thailand is its established customs reward system, which grants the Director-General of the Customs Department the authority to “reward” customs officials and third-party whistleblowers for reporting or otherwise successfully pursuing instances of customs evasion (smuggling) and customs avoidance (false declarations).

The current reward-sharing system provides for a generous 55% of the penalty recovered from an “offender” to be distributed as a reward. Of this amount, 30% is provided to third-party whistleblowers, which may even include other government officers. The remaining 25% is shared between the customs officials who identified and handled the case.

The officials can include any person performing an official duty for the Customs Department such as inspectors, superintendents, and even the Director-General.

Thailand’s reward system is in stark contrast to that practised in many other countries. Those countries that do have a reward system as an incentive, such as Britain, India, and Pakistan, impose strict limitations on the computation of rewards.

For instance, in Britain, rewards are only offered to third-party whistleblowers and not to customs officials. In India, the rewards are capped at a maximum amount over a customs official’s entire career and for a single case. No such cap exists in Thailand, with rewards theoretically reaching into hundreds of millions of Baht per case.

There are, of course, legitimate reasons for maintaining a customs reward system—a fact that is recognized by other Thai government offices. Rewards are considered beneficial in promoting the identification and apprehension of wrongdoers.

The goal, however, is to do so in a manner that is least likely to reduce efficiency, while, at the same time, respecting the individual rights of the accused. This can arguably be achieved through a measured approach to a rewards system. In fact, several other Thai government offices use rewards systems but with caps.

Numerous international studies have suggested that offering large rewards can create an incentive that goes beyond what is needed to effectively perform an officer’s duties. The primary aim of the rewards system has been to ensure the timely identification of customs avoidance and evasion. But by failing to impose adequate limits, the current law creates an environment in which the very wrongdoing it seeks to eliminate can be indirectly facilitated.

For example, an extreme and inefficient focus on process and investigation can actually encourage importers to consider illicit means to expedite customs clearance. Further, unconstrained incentives can encourage an environment of harassment and targeting by law enforcement. With widespread recognition of the problem, efforts have been made at measured and even substantial reform of the customs reward system. The Customs Act has been amended on occasion, but efforts to alter the rewards system and the large penalties imposed for customs offenses have been largely unsuccessful.

As a result of pressure from the international business community, in September 2010, the Thai cabinet agreed to allow for a more flexible penalty calculation—one that allowed for judicial discretion in establishing a penalty range from one-half to four times the actual import value. This was a positive step toward reform. Sadly, however, the amendment was not approved.

The ASEAN Customs Agreement and the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures stress the importance of simplifying customs procedures to facilitate trade, transparency, and increased professionalism in customs administration. This is an approach also recognized by the broader international community and the WTO.

Continued adherence to an inefficient rewards system not only affects the individual rights of importers, but can mar the promotion of Thailand’s economic interests within ASEAN and the international community as a whole.

A directed focus on meaningful reform in line with international customs practice and global standards of transparency can be an important step toward promoting international investment opportunities in Thailand.

At the same time, it would still recognize the legitimate efforts of the Thai authorities to identify customs evasion and avoidance.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 24, 2026
Significant economic challenges facing Thailand in recent years have placed financial pressure on both individuals and businesses. As a result, many debtors may find themselves unable to meet their repayment obligations, leading to bankruptcy proceedings. When an individual or corporate debtor in Thailand is subject to bankruptcy proceedings, the Thai Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) provides a legal framework for collecting a debtor’s assets and using them to repay creditors. Under the Bankruptcy Act, creditors wishing to recover outstanding debts must file a debt repayment application (DRA), which is the primary mechanism for asserting claims in bankruptcy proceedings. However, the filing of a DRA is subject to specific legal requirements, procedural rules, deadlines, and supporting documentation. Failure to comply with these requirements may adversely affect a creditor’s ability to recover its claim. This article highlights the key considerations that creditors should be aware of when filing a DRA in a bankruptcy case in Thailand. Filing a DRA In a bankruptcy case, after the court issues an absolute receivership order, the debtor loses the authority to manage or dispose of its assets. Control over the debtor’s assets is transferred to the official receiver, a government official responsible for administering the bankruptcy estate in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Creditors seeking repayment of their debts must file a DRA with the official receiver within two months of the absolute receivership order being officially published in the Government Gazette. For creditors outside of Thailand, the official receiver may extend the filing period by up to an additional two months. These filing deadlines are strictly enforced. Failure to file within the prescribed period may result in the claim being barred, except in limited circumstances permitted by the Bankruptcy Act. Where a late filing is accepted due to force majeure, the creditor may only
Read More
August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More