The global trade environment for Thai exporters in 2026 has shifted significantly. Recent enforcement developments in both the United States and the European Union show a clear shift in trade policy: regulators are no longer focused solely on tariff levels, but also on whether products genuinely originate where exporters claim they do. Adding to this complexity, the US Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision striking down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs has upended the legal basis for a major pillar of US tariff policy, creating significant legal and commercial uncertainty for exporters worldwide, including in Thailand.

For Thai companies integrated into regional supply chains, this change carries material implications. Although the IEEPA-based US reciprocal tariffs have been struck down, intensified circumvention enforcement continues under separate legal authorities, and the administration has signaled its intent to reimpose tariffs under alternative statutory frameworks, while EU authorities are using anti-circumvention investigations where trade patterns shift. In both jurisdictions, the decisive issue is whether manufacturing in Thailand constitutes substantial transformation under applicable rules of origin.

Such origin determinations increasingly drive duty exposure, audit risk and commercial disputes. In 2026, the ability to defend a product’s Thai origin is not merely a procedural step, it is central to preserving market access in the US and EU.

Impact Of US Circumvention Enforcement and an Uncertain Tariff Landscape

Following the 2025 Framework for an Agreement on Reciprocal Trade, Thailand saw a shift in its tariff relationship with the US. A substantial range of Thai-origin goods were subject to a 19% reciprocal tariff under the IEEPA. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the use of IEEPA for tariffs has removed the legal basis for that rate. The Administration has indicated it intends to pursue replacement tariffs under other statutory authorities, but the specific rates, scope, and timing applicable to Thai goods remain uncertain.

Perhaps more significantly, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has intensified its review of imports suspected of being routed through third countries to avoid US trade remedies. If CBP determines that goods were effectively rerouted through Thailand to disguise their true origin, exposure may extend well beyond standard tariff treatment. Public enforcement signals include penalty duties that may reach 40%, along with detention, seizure, and retrospective reassessment.

This enforcement posture reflects a broader policy priority of identifying and neutralizing trade patterns that suggest evasion of anti-dumping, countervailing, or other applicable trade measures. Sudden increases in export volumes, shifts in product classification, or significant reliance on non-Thai inputs may trigger closer examination. Importantly, investigations are not limited to border inspections; post-entry audits and document reviews have become increasingly common.

Within this enforcement climate, certain product categories have emerged as recurring attractors of scrutiny. Solar cells and modules, in particular, have been a recurring focus of investigation, with US trade enforcement authorities examining whether Thai-assembled panels incorporate components originating from jurisdictions subject to anti-dumping or countervailing duty orders. Steel and aluminum products, including fabricated structural components, have similarly faced heightened scrutiny in light of Section 232 tariffs, which authorize trade restrictions on imports deemed to threaten US national security, and long-standing anti-dumping measures applicable to numerous foreign producers. Electronics and electrical equipment, especially products containing substantial Chinese-inputs, have been subject to origin verification inquiries, while wood furniture, automotive parts, and certain machinery products have also drawn enforcement attention where import data and trade patterns suggest potential transshipment or insufficient processing in Thailand to confer a change in origin.

At the same time, Thailand’s Department of Foreign Trade has created a specialized task force focused on Certificates of Origin. Exporters should anticipate more frequent verification requests and more detailed inquiries into local content calculations. The issuance of a Certificate of Origin, once largely procedural, is now subject to substantive review, and discrepancies between declared origin and underlying production data may have consequences well beyond the individual shipment.

EU Anti-Circumvention as a Strategic Tool

The European Union has adopted a similarly assertive enforcement posture. While Thailand continues negotiations toward a free trade agreement, enforcement under existing EU trade defense instruments has intensified. The European Commission has demonstrated a willingness to initiate anti-circumvention investigations under Article 13 of the EU Anti-Dumping Regulation where there is evidence of a change in trade patterns.

In practical terms, if duties are imposed on a particular country and Thai exports of the same product subsequently increases atypically, the Commission may examine whether Thailand is being used as a platform for circumvention. For example, sudden spikes in Thai exports of solar panels, bicycles, or steel following duties imposed on other countries have prompted such scrutiny. The principle, however, applies broadly and is not limited to any specific sector.

Recent EU enforcement actions illustrate this trend. Thai exporters of e-bikes and electric bicycles have faced scrutiny following anti-dumping duties imposed on Chinese-origin products, with the Commission examining whether assembly operations in Thailand add sufficient value. Similarly, certain categories of footwear, frozen shrimp, and canned tuna—all significant Thai export products—have been subject to origin verification inquiries. In addition, photovoltaic cells and modules routed through Thailand have drawn attention in the solar sector as global solar trade patterns shifted in response to duties on other Asian producers. The textile and apparel industry has also seen increased vigilance, particularly for garments using fabrics sourced from countries subject to trade measures.

The legal threshold in these investigations turns on whether the processing carried out in Thailand constitutes substantial transformation. Minimal processing, such as simple assembly or repackaging, is unlikely to be sufficient to qualify a product as “made in Thailand.” Exporters must be able to demonstrate that the manufacturing activities undertaken in Thailand meaningfully altered the product’s essential character. Failing that, the EU may extend the original antidumping duties to Thai exporters, with potential retroactive effect.

For businesses reliant on EU market access, the inability to defend origin determinations presents a systemic risk. Beyond duty liability, companies may face reputational harm and heightened scrutiny in future transactions.

Origin Analysis

Although US and EU procedures are not identical, both systems rely on the idea of “last substantial transformation.” In simple terms, a product gets its origin from the place where the last meaningful manufacturing step occurs. A product can qualify for origin in two ways. The first is by meeting a required tariff shift, meaning the product’s classification under the Harmonized System changes after processing. The second is by meeting a value-based requirement, which looks at whether enough of the product’s value is added in the country claiming origin.

This type of assessment is technical and varies by product. It requires alignment between the tariff code, the bill of materials, the cost structure, and the actual production steps. For manufacturers that use a high level of imported components, the key question is whether the work performed in Thailand changes the product enough to create Thai origin under the applicable rule. In the current enforcement environment, this must be supported with clear evidence. Although the IEEPA-based reciprocal tariff rates have been invalidated, origin determinations remain critical. Replacement tariffs under other US statutory authorities are anticipated, antidumping and countervailing duty orders remain in force, and EU enforcement is entirely independent of the US ruling.

Thailand Export Compliance Priorities For 2026

Given the current enforcement climate, origin compliance should be built into everyday operational and contracting decisions. Three practical priorities are particularly important:

1. Ensure Production Meets the Applicable Origin Rules

Structuring production correctly at the outset is far more reliable than defending an origin claim after shipment. This requires confirming the correct tariff classification, mapping where value is added, and ensuring that the processing carried out in Thailand satisfies the applicable “last substantial transformation” standard under US and EU rules.

Origin determinations generally depend on either a change in tariff classification or a requirement that a certain percentage of the product’s value be created in Thailand. The analysis depends on the product and requires clear mapping of inputs, production steps, and cost structures. Companies that rely heavily on imported components should assess whether their local processing is significant enough to meet the legal thresholds for the product category involved.

2. Maintain Clear Audit-Ready Documentation

Authorities now expect much more than a Certificate of Origin; exporters should maintain a consistent set of records that can verify where the production occurred and how the origin determination was made. This record should include bills of materials, supplier declarations, raw material invoices, cost breakdowns, production records, and labor or process records showing that the work took place in Thailand. In practice, the exporter must be able to prove its origin determination with contemporaneous evidence, particularly when facing an audit.

3. Address Customs Risk in Commercial Contracts

When shipments are detained or duties are reassessed, exporters and buyers frequently disagree over who should bear financial responsibility. Well-drafted agreements that address how customs risks are allocated can significantly reduce the potential for such commercial disputes. Indemnity clauses that cover customs reclassification, retroactive duty assessments, and trade remedy exposure, together with clear representations regarding the accuracy of origin declarations, and cooperation provisions for audits help manage risk before problems arise. Contracts may also require suppliers to maintain and provide origin-supporting documentation upon request, including costed bills of materials and production records, for a defined retention period. Contracts should also state how duty reassessments will be handled, who is responsible if origin information later proves incorrect, and how newly imposed trade remedies or reclassification decisions will be allocated between the parties. Given the transitional state of US tariff policy, contracts should also address how the parties will allocate risk if tariff rates change under new statutory authorities, or if refunds of previously paid IEEPA-based tariffs become available. Parties may also consider suspension or termination rights where shipments are detained, seized, or subjected to material retroactive duty assessments.

Compliance as Competitive Advantage

Heightened enforcement in the US and EU reflects a broader policy shift toward supply chain transparency and the aggressive use of trade remedy instruments. Buyers increasingly evaluate suppliers through a risk lens, and companies that demonstrate transparent sourcing, defensible value-add in Thailand, and structured compliance processes can be seen as lower-risk counterparties in today’s volatile international trade policy climate.

Thai exporters should view rules of origin compliance as an operational priority rather than only as source of paperwork. For instance, companies can integrate origin analysis into production planning and address tariff classifications and value-added thresholds from the start. By confirming that processing in Thailand meets US and EU “last substantial transformation” standards, and by documenting each step in the value chain, exporters can minimize the risk of customs audits, shipment delays, and unexpected duty reassessments. In the current environment, where the US tariff regime applicable to Thai goods is shifting from IEEPA to alternative statutory authorities, the ability to adapt quickly to evolving tariff measures is itself a competitive differentiator. This careful, proactive approach is more likely to help companies maintain overseas market access and avoid costly compliance disputes.

This article was originally published in the March 2026 issue of Export Compliance Manager from Dow Jones.