Thailand Amends Settlement Guidelines for Customs Disputes

Apr 8, 2022

In 2017, Thailand undertook significant revisions to its Customs Act, overhauling a system long regarded as ambiguous and problematic. While many business operators praised the changes, there remained ambiguities, especially regarding customs dispute settlements.

To address these, the Director General of the Thai Customs Department released new customs settlement guidelines on November 22, 2017. This directive repealed the previous Practical Regulation Code for Customs from 2013 and introduced a new regulation from 2017. This new set of guidelines offers clear procedures on customs-related issues, emphasizing the resolution of customs disputes.

Of particular note is the treatment of duty evasion claims under section 243:

Before November 22, 2017:

  • A false customs declaration faced a penalty of twice the duty evaded, alongside the actual duty owed and an additional fine equivalent to the evaded tax.

  • Unauthorized alterations or forgery in declaration documentation resulting in duty evasion faced a fine of four times the duty evaded, with another fine equaling the evaded tax.

  • The minimum total penalty was set at THB 50,000.

  • Goods concealed from officials faced a fine of four times the evaded duty and potential state confiscation.

Under the revised guidelines:

  • For duties evaded up to THB 50,000, the fine is half of the evaded duty.

  • For duties between THB 50,000 and THB 100,000, the fine equals the evaded amount.

  • For duties over THB 100,000, the fine is twice the evaded amount.

  • Unauthorized alterations or forgery resulting in duty evasion are penalized with a fine four times the evaded duty and an additional fine equivalent to the evaded tax, mirroring previous rules.

  • Concealed goods are fined four times the evaded duty and might be confiscated.

A significant change under section 243 is the court's newfound ability to adjust fines based on individual cases. This flexibility allows accused parties to better weigh the benefits of early settlements versus court trials. It's a progressive step, and it's hoped this discretion will be further enhanced in future regulations.