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

On September 23, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) launched a one-month public consultation period on a proposed notification that would overhaul how antitrust offenses under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) are settled and penalized. The draft notification would replace the existing 2019 settlement framework with more detailed procedures, introduce offense-specific methods for fine calculation, and add tiered deterrence multipliers. Comments may be submitted until October 22, 2026. Restructured Settlement Procedures and Timelines The proposed notification formalizes the settlement process with clearer terminology and mandatory procedural steps. Once the TCCT determines that an accused party has committed an offense that does not warrant imprisonment, the commission would fix the settlement fine amount. The accused would have 15 days from receipt of the summons to appear before the TCCT, though this period may be extended if necessary. If the accused confesses, consents to settlement, and pays the fine within the prescribed period, the criminal case would be closed and the settlement recorded. Refusals would also be recorded for further arrangements, and failure to appear, pay, or consent would result in the TCCT forwarding the case file and its recommendation—along with the accused’s fingerprints—to the public prosecutor. Notably, the draft allows accused parties to request settlement even after the TCCT has recommended prosecution but before the public prosecutor files charges, subject to prosecutorial consent. The draft preserves TCCT discretion to decline settlement where the accused has committed more than three prior offenses or where the violation has substantially impaired free and fair competition, directing such cases directly to prosecution. Fine Calculation Frameworks The proposed notification establishes different fine calculation approaches depending on the type of Trade Competition Act violation. For the most serious offenses (such as abusing market dominance, making anticompetitive agreements, or forming hardcore cartels) the

On September 15, 2026, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance (MOF) released for public consultation a draft circular on reporting and information disclosure in the pilot crypto asset market. The draft implements Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP on the Pilot Implementation of the Crypto Asset Market in Vietnam and provides further detail on how licensed crypto asset service providers (“CASPs”) will be supervised once the market becomes operational. The draft indicates a data-intensive supervisory model, with licensed CASPs serving as the first line of market oversight. Public Disclosure Requirements The draft imposes detailed public disclosure requirements on CASPs, aimed primarily at market transparency. CASPs and crypto asset issuers must make disclosures in both Vietnamese and English, retain reported and disclosed information for at least 10 years, and keep information published on their websites accessible for at least five years. For CASPs, disclosure obligations arise both periodically and when specific events occur. A CASP must announce any crypto asset to be admitted to trading on its website at least seven days before trading begins and publish periodic financial statements. Certain extraordinary events and information requested by the MOF must generally be disclosed within 24 hours. CASPs must also provide ongoing market information. During trading hours, they must publish key trading data, including prices and volumes, daily highs and lows, average prices, the three best bid and offer levels, and transactions by foreign investors. By 9:00 a.m. each trading day, they must publish specified information on the previous day’s trading activity. Regulatory Reporting Requirements Separate from public disclosure, the draft requires CASPs to provide regulators with detailed information enabling ongoing supervision of their operations and the market. For market activity, CASPs must report decisions to admit or remove a crypto asset from trading within 24 hours, submit previous-day trading data to the State Securities Commission

Packaging is a valuable commercial asset that helps consumers identify and distinguish products through their shape, colors, graphics, labels, and overall presentation. Obtaining legal protections for these assets is thus an important step. Businesses entering into or operating in the Myanmar market should assess whether trademark protection, industrial design protection, or both provide the strongest IP strategy for these features. The country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) under the Ministry of Commerce now administers trademark and industrial design registrations since Myanmar’s modernization of its intellectual property framework through the enactment of four key IP laws in 2019. Trademark Protection for Packaging Under the Trademark Law 2019, a “mark” is any visually perceptible sign, including words, names, letters, numerals, figurative elements, color combinations, or combinations of these signs, capable of distinguishing one undertaking’s goods or services from another’s. Trademark protection may therefore extend to certain elements of product packaging that function as source identifiers. Depending on their presentation and distinctiveness, packaging elements such as brand names, logos, labels, configurations, color combinations, and three-dimensional (3D) shapes may qualify for trademark protection. However, under the current practice of the IPD and its available examination guidelines, the packaging and  trade dress (including product get-up) are not expressly recognized as separate registrable subject matter in Myanmar. Under the Trademark Law 2019, trademark infringement—including unauthorized use of a registered mark on packaging—may give rise to civil remedies, including injunctions and damages, as well as criminal penalties. A 3D mark may protect packaging shape or configuration if it has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumers associate it with the relevant products. However, a shape dictated by a functional or technical purpose is ineligible for registration. Registration of a 3D mark may be renewed indefinitely for successive ten-year periods, subject to compliance with renewal requirements. Industrial Design Protection

Under Thailand’s Patent Act B.E. 2522 (1979), any person may raise the invalidity of a patent as a matter of defense. However, the right to initiate court proceedings to cancel a patent is reserved exclusively for an “interested person” or the public prosecutor. This distinction between merely challenging validity and initiating judicial revocation proceedings has given rise to a significant body of Supreme Court (Dika) jurisprudence interpreting who qualifies as an “interested person” under the Patent Act. Statutory Framework Section 54 of the Patent Act provides that any invention patent granted not in compliance with the patentability requirements will be invalid, and that a petition to cancel such a patent may be submitted to the court by any “interested person” or the public prosecutor. Section 64 mirrors this provision for design patents, and section 65 novies extends the same framework to petty patents. However, none of these provisions defines the term “interested person,” leaving its interpretation to the courts. Supreme Court Interpretation The Thai Supreme Court has developed a consistent body of case law establishing that an “interested person” must be someone directly affected by the existence of the patent—not simply any member of the public. In 1989, the court found (Dika No. 2670/2532) that a party whose intended use of the patented technology was still in a preparatory stage—before actual manufacturing had commenced—did not qualify as an interested person. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court further elaborated  (Dika No. 2906/2552) that an interested party is one whose rights to utilize the invention are restricted by virtue of the patent, such as a manufacturer or producer whose operations are directly impacted by the patentee’s exclusive rights. In the 2008 case of T.M. Grating Steel Co., Ltd. v. Billion Mass Industry Co., Ltd. (Dika No. 974/2551), where the plaintiff had

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

On September 15, 2026, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (Thai FDA) opened a public consultation period on the principles of a proposed Ministry of Public Health (MOPH) notification establishing specific Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) requirements for foods derived from cultured animal cells. The proposal would build on Thailand’s existing safety assessment framework by proposing GMP requirements specifically tailored to the production of cultivated meat. As cultivated meat advances toward commercial production, its unique manufacturing processes present food safety challenges involving aseptic conditions, starting cell quality, culture media, and specialized equipment. Thailand’s Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979) provides the legal basis for regulating food manufacturing, but no GMP requirements specifically tailored to cultivated meat have been issued under it. The proposed framework aims to address this gap. The Thai FDA has not yet released a complete draft notification, so the proposed requirements outlined below may change before adoption. However, they indicate the direction the regulator intends to take, and companies preparing to enter the Thai market can use them now to anticipate their compliance obligations. What Is Cultivated Meat? Cultivated meat, also known as cell-based food or cell-cultured meat (and referred to in the proposed notification as food derived from cultured animal cells), is produced by cultivating animal cells rather than raising and slaughtering animals through conventional meat production. The process generally begins with the selection of animal cells or stem cells, which are cultivated in an appropriate culture medium within a bioreactor to promote cell growth and proliferation. Scaffolding materials or other techniques may subsequently be used to develop cells into tissue or other forms suitable for consumption. Unlike conventional meat production, this process introduces specific food safety considerations relating to starting cells, culture media, production substances, contamination controls, and potential residues in the final product. Thailand’s Safety

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