On February 2, 2026, Myanmar’s Ministry of Finance and Revenue issued Notification No. 19/2026, reducing the customs duty rate to 0% for certain battery‑electric vehicles, machinery, and related spare parts, applicable from February 2, 2026, through March 31, 2026. Under the notification, imports of battery‑electric special‑purpose vehicles, battery‑electric industrial machinery, and associated spare parts listed in the notification’s annex are eligible for a zero‑percent customs duty rate. These items must be supported by technical recommendations from the Ministry of Electric Power and a recommendation from the Ministry of Industry. The notification applies to a broad range of battery electric equipment, including the following categories: Special purpose vehicles, such as crane trucks, mobile drilling trucks, concrete mixers, mobile clinics, broadcast vans, and street‑cleaning vehicles. Heavy machinery, including excavators, bulldozers, loaders, cranes, rollers, forklifts, and port handling equipment. Spare parts, covering 16 specified categories, including key components such as chargers, inverters, and controllers. Importers and businesses using electric‑powered industrial equipment should review the scope of the eligible items and confirm whether their planned imports fall within the lists covered by the notification.

The past year has been an important one for the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT). With a right combination of commissioners bringing expertise in competition law, investigations, administrative procedures, court processes, and sector-focused industries, the regulator has pushed forward with stronger enforcement efforts and closer cooperation with both domestic and international stakeholders. In 2025 the TCCT participated in major international initiatives—including peer reviews conducted by the OECD and ASEAN. These efforts reflect Thailand’s ongoing ambition to elevate its competition law framework to meet international expectations and build trust among global communities. There was also significant momentum around potential amendments to the Trade Competition Act (TCA). Political parties, the TCCT, the private sector, and civil society all agreed that the 2017 law could benefit from clearer rules and more effective enforcement tools. Although a draft amendment passed an initial reading and moved to a subcommittee for revision, the process stalled following the dissolution of Parliament. At the same time, the TCCT invested heavily in strengthening its own internal capabilities. It expanded collaborations with organizations such as the OECD, ASEAN authorities, the EU, and counterparts in Japan and Australia. The TCCT also published sector-specific market studies, including on digital platforms and e‑marketplaces and on cold‑rolled steel. The regulator also shared draft guidelines aimed at regulating online platforms—although these have not yet been finalized. What’s Next for the TCCT? Looking ahead, the TCCT is set to keep building on the momentum it has created and be a more active, transparent, and practical regulator. It is likely to become even more visible in the public sphere as it steps up efforts to raise awareness about competition law, especially among businesses that may not traditionally follow or be familiar with such regulatory developments. Digital markets, including e‑commerce and online marketplaces, will remain a particular area of focus as the

Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section 44 of the Air Navigation Act

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overhauled its approach to related-party transactions (RPTs) by issuing new rules that simplify approval processes while expanding oversight. Capital Market Supervisory Board Notification No. TorJor. 46/2568 will replace the longstanding Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551, which has governed RPT compliance for over a decade. The new regulation takes effect on July 1, 2026. Any RPT matters approved by a company’s board of directors or approved for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551. The new RPT rules will introduce significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Consolidated Definitions Under the previous framework, key definitions relevant to RPT compliance were dispersed across multiple sources, including SEC notifications, Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) regulations, and provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act (before amendments). The new regulation consolidates these definitions into a single notification. Concepts such as “related party” and “connected person,” as well as relevant transaction categories, are now more systematically organized and written in greater detail. The SET has yet to issue corresponding regulations, which should include more detailed related disclosure requirements. Unified Threshold and Mandatory Board Approval The most significant change under the new regulation is the elimination of the multitiered approval framework based on transaction type. Instead of various categories, transactions are now classified as either (1) financial assistance provided to related persons, or (2) other RPTs in order to determine the level of corporate approvals and disclosures for each transaction size in these categories, but the concept remains the same. Under the previous regulation, RPTs were divided into small, medium, and large transactions, with differing approval requirements. The new regulation effectively merges the small and medium categories. As a result, all RPTs must now be approved by the board of directors as a baseline requirement—a change from such approval not being required for

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued a new regulation on material transactions (MTs) to govern asset acquisitions and disposals by listed companies and their subsidiaries. The new notification on MT criteria (No. TorJor. 45/2568) from the Capital Market Supervisory Board replaces the long-standing notification (No. TorJor. 20/2551) that has governed such matters. The SEC has also introduced parallel amendments to the country’s related-party transaction rules. The new regulation will take effect on July 1, 2026. Any MT matters approved by a company’s board of directors for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 20/2551. Following that date, the new MT rules will introduce several significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Expanded Scope of Material Transactions One of the key changes under the new regulation is the expansion of the definition of MTs, which now expressly covers financial assistance and certain lease and business lease arrangements that are not in the ordinary course of business of the listed company or its subsidiaries. For financial assistance, this includes lending, granting credit, providing guarantees, or entering into any arrangement that increases the company’s financial obligations, particularly where the recipient is facing liquidity issues or unable to repay debts. Other forms of financial support also fall within scope. However, whether the provision of collateral for others qualifies as an MT remains somewhat unclear, since no disposal of assets occurs for the provider of collateral. This issue remains to be carefully considered. For lease-related transactions, the MT rules now specifically include the lease or hire-purchase of all or part of a business or assets operated by or belonging to a listed company or its subsidiaries. New Exemptions The new regulation introduces clearer exemptions for transactions between a listed company and its subsidiaries or among subsidiaries, which were not explicitly addressed under the old regime.

On February 4, 2026, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) released a draft notification outlining updated criteria and procedures for requesting advance decisions under section 59 of the Trade Competition Act (TCA). This draft is now open for public comment through the TCCT website until March 5, 2026. Section 59 of the TCA lets businesses proactively ask the TCCT to review whether a planned activity, such as a business strategy, marketing program, or other proposed conduct, could potentially violate the TCA. The major limitation is that this mechanism cannot be used for merger‑control matters. The new draft aims to make the process more accessible and user‑friendly. Key updates include allowing for electronic submission of requests and establishing a shorter notification timeframe, requiring the TCCT to explain any delay to the 60‑day review period within 7 days instead of the previous 15 days. For many businesses, this preliminary consultation tool is an effective way to reduce regulatory and competition‑law risks. Businesses that have taken advantage of this process have found that obtaining an advance decision can provide meaningful legal certainty, as the decision is binding once issued.

Data center and cloud investments are forming a major focus of private-sector investment in Thailand, with tech giants like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and TikTok, as well as numerous telecom and data center companies, committing significant outlays to data center and cloud development. The country’s Board of Investment (BOI) approved projects worth THB 1.87 trillion in 2025, and THB 746 billion of this was from planned data center investments—by far the largest amount from any single industry. Thailand’s swift rise as a regional data center hub is fueled by surging demand for cloud, AI, and digital services, as well as large-scale investments from global tech firms. The country’s strategic location, competitive power costs, robust fiber infrastructure, expanding IT talent, and supportive government policies—including BOI incentives and streamlined approvals—have made it an attractive destination for scalable and sustainable digital infrastructure investments. The BOI’s proactive approach in updating promoted categories and providing both tax and non-tax incentives further ensures Thailand’s continued growth in this sector. 2025 BOI Changes for Data Centers In the middle of 2025, the BOI responded to the remarkable trend by updating investment‑promotion categories across various sectors (e.g., machinery and electrical equipment, public utilities, digital and innovative industries) to accommodate growing investment in data‑center projects. Before the change, which was detailed in a notification that has applied to investment promotion applications submitted from July 1, 2025, onward, data‑center projects under BOI promotion were granted a single A1 incentive (an eight‑year corporate income‑tax exemption) and subject to one uniform set of conditions. The July 2025 notification restructured promotion for data centers into two categories based on power‑usage efficiency: high‑efficiency data centers and other data centers. Under these rules, qualified high‑efficiency data centers are eligible for an eight‑year corporate income tax (CIT) exemption, while for other data centers this exemption is five years. Both exemptions are

When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the bank’s argument that the unauthorized transactions could