Tag: Government

on by

Notification of the Competent Officer on Exchange Control (No. 38) — Draft Amendment

Introduction

On 25 March 2026, the Competent Officer on Exchange Control issued the Draft Notification on the Criteria and Procedures for Foreign Exchange Transactions (No. 38) (the “Draft Notification”). The Draft Notification proposes amendments to the existing notification dated 31 March 2004 (as amended), with the principal objective of enhancing regulatory clarity and easing documentary requirements for certain foreign exchange (“FX”) transactions.

The proposed amendments primarily concern documentary requirements, the timing for submission of supporting documents, and the specific treatment of certain transaction categories, including FX purchases for foreign currency deposit (“FCD”) accounts, gold import payments, and hedging transactions. The Draft Notification is expected to have material practical implications for authorized juristic persons, financial institutions, and business operators engaged in cross-border FX transactions.

Key Amendments

1. FX Purchases for Own Foreign Currency Deposit (FCD) Accounts

Under the Draft Notification, where a customer purchases foreign currency solely for deposit into its own FCD account, authorized juristic persons are no longer required to request supporting documents, irrespective of the transaction amount.

This amendment represents a significant relaxation of administrative requirements and reflects a regulatory policy direction toward facilitating liquidity management and FX flexibility for market participants. Supervisory oversight will continue to be exercised under the existing FCD regulatory framework.

2. FX Purchases for Gold Import Payments

In contrast to the relaxation described above, the Draft Notification expressly tightens documentary requirements for FX purchases made for the purpose of settling payments for imported gold.

For such transactions, authorized juristic persons must request supporting documents in all cases, without regard to transaction value. No monetary threshold or exemption applies.

This differentiated treatment reflects the regulator’s continued emphasis on monitoring transactions considered to carry heightened financial, market, or systemic risk.

3. Timing for Submission of Supporting Documents

The Draft Notification clarifies and differentiates timing requirements for the submission of supporting documents as follows:

General Rule Supporting documents must be submitted on the transaction date (the “Trade Date”).

Relaxation for Certain Spot Transactions For spot FX transactions not related to gold import payments, authorized juristic persons may, where justified by necessity and reasonableness, permit the submission of supporting documents on the settlement date (the “Settlement Date”) in lieu of the Trade Date.

Mandatory Submission on the Settlement Date Submission of supporting documents on the Settlement Date is required for:

  • forward FX transactions with a value of USD 200,000 or equivalent or more; and
  • FX purchases for gold import payments, regardless of amount.

4. FX Transactions for Hedging Based on Forecast Exposure

For FX transactions entered into for the purpose of hedging or managing exchange rate risk arising from forecast exposure, the Draft Notification introduces greater flexibility in the categories of acceptable documentation.

In addition to forecast-based documents, customers may now submit:

  • evidence of underlying obligations; or
  • documents demonstrating exposure to exchange rate risk, such as billing notices or contractual indicators.

This change more closely aligns regulatory practice with commercial reality, particularly in the context of treasury and risk management operations.

5. Sale of Foreign Currency by Residents

The Draft Notification amends the existing provisions governing the sale of foreign currency by persons resident in Thailand, applicable to both spot and forward transactions.

Authorized juristic persons are permitted to facilitate such transactions on a broader basis, in particular where the seller:

  • will receive foreign currency income in the future; or
  • maintains funds in its own FCD account.

This amendment provides additional operational flexibility while preserving applicable reporting and disclosure obligations.

Key Takeaways

  • FCD Transactions: FX purchases for deposit into a customer’s own FCD account no longer require supporting documents, regardless of amount.
  • Gold Imports: FX purchases for gold import payments remain strictly regulated, with mandatory documentation required in all cases.
  • Document Timing: While the Trade Date remains the default submission deadline, limited flexibility has been introduced for non-gold spot FX transactions.
  • Large Forward FX Transactions: Forward contracts valued at USD 200,000 or more require documentation to be submitted on the Settlement Date.
  • Hedging Transactions: A broader range of documentary evidence is now acceptable for forecast-based hedging arrangements.
  • Operational Impact: Financial institutions and business operators are advised to review and update their internal policies, compliance checklists, and transaction workflows to ensure alignment with the Draft Notification.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Proposed Updates to the Non-Preferential Certificate of Origin Framework for Exports to the United States and the European Union

The Department of Foreign Trade (DFT) is conducting a public hearing from 1 April to 15 April 2026 on a draft notification concerning the verification of product origin for the issuance of Non-Preferential Certificates of Origin (“C/O“) for exports to the United States and the European Union (the “Draft Notification“).

The Draft Notification seeks to strengthen the criteria, procedures, and verification mechanisms governing origin certification for surveillance goods in relation to C/O issuance, in alignment with prevailing international trade measures. Key objectives include reinforcing monitoring systems, enhancing inter-agency coordination, and improving the verification of high-risk goods. These measures are intended to address risks of transshipment, origin misrepresentation, and evasion of anti-dumping duties and elevated tariffs, as well as to prevent circumvention of trade measures through the misuse of C/Os in customs declarations.

Key Principles and Implementation Framework

The Draft Notification introduces a mandatory origin verification mechanism for exporters seeking to obtain C/Os for surveillance goods destined for the United States and the European Union. Under this framework, exporters intending to declare Thai origin to foreign customs authorities via a C/O are required to undergo prior origin verification of the goods with the DFT. This requirement applies to goods listed in the annex as surveillance products, comprising 9 product groups for exports to the EU and 67 product groups for exports to the United States, all of which are subject to trade measures due to risks of origin misrepresentation.

1. Verification Procedure

Exporters must submit an application for origin verification through the DFT’s electronic system, together with relevant information and supporting evidence pertaining to the production process. The DFT will assess the origin qualifications of the goods and communicate the verification results through the same system. The results will serve as supporting evidence for subsequent C/O applications and will remain valid for a period of two years.

2. Enforcement

To monitor and enforce compliance with the mechanism, the DFT is empowered to conduct on-site inspections of business premises, production facilities, and storage locations where doubt arises regarding the production process — whether before or after the issuance of a verification result — in order to verify adherence to the applicable rules of origin.

3. Revocation

The DFT is further empowered to revoke a verification result where it is established that goods have been falsely declared as originating from Thailand through the use of a C/O, or where changes in production or export information result in non-compliance with the relevant rules of origin. In such cases, the revoked verification result may no longer be relied upon for future C/O applications.

Conclusion

The Draft Notification represents a significant tightening of Thailand’s non-preferential certificate of origin regime, particularly with respect to high-risk export categories. By introducing a mandatory pre-verification mechanism supported by electronic processing, enhanced inspection powers, and revocation authority, the DFT aims to strengthen the integrity of origin certification and ensure greater compliance with international trade rules. If implemented, the measure is expected to increase regulatory scrutiny for exporters while simultaneously enhancing the credibility and transparency of Thai export documentation in key markets, namely the United States and the European Union.

Key Takeaways

The primary objective is to prevent origin misrepresentation and circumvention of trade measures.

Mandatory origin verification is required prior to the issuance of non-preferential C/Os for exports to the United States and the European Union.

The requirement applies to surveillance goods across 9 EU product groups and 67 US product groups.

Applications are submitted and processed through an electronic system, with verification results valid for two years.

The DFT retains authority to conduct on-site inspections and revoke verification results where warranted.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s DBD Launches Public Hearing to Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999)

The Department of Business Development (“DBD”), under the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand, is currently conducting a nationwide public hearing from 30 March to 30 April 2026 (the “Public Hearing”) to evaluate the effectiveness and practical implications of the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (the “FBA”) in the current economic context. The FBA, which serves as the cornerstone of Thailand’s legal framework governing foreign participation in business activities, seeks to balance the protection of Thai business operators with the promotion of foreign investment. It not only regulates market access but also ensures that foreign participation contributes to the Thai economy through job creation, technology and knowledge transfer, and an expanded range of goods and services.

The Public Hearing aims to assess whether key aspects of the current legal framework — including the definition of “foreigner,” business classifications, licensing requirements, and enforcement mechanisms — remain appropriate in today’s evolving economic environment. It also reflects the government’s commitment to keeping the law aligned with changing business practices and international obligations. Feedback gathered through this process will inform targeted amendments intended to improve legal clarity, close existing loopholes, strengthen enforcement, and streamline regulatory procedures, ultimately establishing a more balanced and effective framework that protects Thai interests while remaining conducive to foreign investment.

Scope of the Public Hearing to Assess and Revise the FBA

The Public Hearing conducted by the DBD is designed to gather stakeholder feedback on key provisions of the FBA in order to assess their effectiveness and practical suitability. The feedback collected will assist the DBD in determining whether the FBA and its subsidiary regulations function as intended, and in identifying areas where adjustments may be required to enhance clarity, compliance, and enforcement. The matters under consideration include the following:

1. Definition of “Foreigner” (Section 4): Whether the current definition provides sufficient clarity and consistency, particularly in the context of complex shareholding structures.

2. Business Classification (Section 8): The continued categorisation of business activities into three lists:

  • List 1: Business activities strictly prohibited to foreigners, covering sensitive sectors that affect Thai livelihoods.
  • List 2: Business activities affecting national security, cultural heritage, or natural resources, which require Cabinet approval.
  • List 3: Business activities in sectors where Thai operators are not yet sufficiently competitive, which require DBD approval.

3. Regulatory Framework for the Foreign Business Certificate (“FBC”) (Sections 10–12): Whether the procedures for obtaining an FBC are practical and consistent with Thai law, international treaties, and special circumstances such as those applicable to foreign-born individuals residing in Thailand.

4. Approval Criteria: Whether the requirements imposed on applicants — including legal status, absence of prohibitions, and financial standing — effectively serve the objectives of national security, economic development, and public order.

5. Compliance Requirements: Whether obligations relating to the display of licenses, reporting of material changes, and applications for replacement licenses are clear and operationally feasible for businesses.

6. Minimum Capital and Capital Injection: Whether current thresholds and timelines for capital investment remain appropriate for business operations across the different classification categories.

7. Enforcement and Penalties: The effectiveness of administrative fines and court-based penalties, including measures to address unauthorized operations and nominee arrangements.

Authorizations under the Current FBA

According to DBD data updated as of March 2026, the majority of approvals under the FBA are concentrated in Foreign Business Licenses (“FBL”) for service businesses classified under List 3. This category accounts for the highest number of approved FBLs, with figures approximately double those of the next most common category — representative offices, which was also used to classified under List 3 of the FBA (currently the representative offices category is exempted from obtaining the FBL).

By contrast, the highest number of Foreign Business Certificates (FBCs) are issued to legal and accounting service firms. These certificates are primarily obtained under the Treaty of Amity between Thailand and the United States, which grants American companies national treatment in Thailand and exempts them from many of the restrictions otherwise imposed by the FBA.

Summary and Outlook

The ongoing Public Hearing presents an important opportunity for Thailand to review and modernize the FBA. Through this process, the DBD has identified several key areas for reform, including clarifying the definition of “foreigner,” updating enforcement and penalty provisions, standardizing licensing, and registration procedures, and addressing mechanisms to prevent legal circumvention. These reforms are aimed at closing existing legal gaps and improving regulatory clarity, thereby creating a framework that effectively protects Thai business interests while remaining supportive of foreign investment.

Under the FBA, violations may result in imprisonment, fines, or both, depending on the severity of the offence and judicial discretion. To reduce the burden on the courts, Section 42 of the FBA empowers the DBD’s Director-General to impose settlement fines for certain categories of offences, enabling cases to be resolved administratively upon payment of the applicable penalties under the Criminal Code. This approach underscores the need to strengthen enforcement mechanisms while maintaining the efficiency of administrative processes.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Trade Competition: Multi-Sided Platforms

Overview

The rapid expansion of the digital economy—particularly in e-commerce and multi-sided platform businesses—has significantly reshaped market structures and competitive dynamics. Multi-sided platforms operate as intermediaries connecting multiple groups of users, including sellers, consumers, logistics providers, payment channels, and advertisers. While such platforms generate economic efficiencies and drive innovation, they also introduce heightened risks under competition law.

To ensure the effective enforcement of the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) in the digital context, the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (“TCCT”) has issued the Guidelines on the Assessment of Monopolistic Conduct, Reduction or Restriction of Competition, and Unfair Trade Practices in Multi-Sided Platform Businesses, Digital Services, and E-Commerce Businesses (published in the Royal Gazette on 24 March 2026). These Guidelines establish a regulatory framework for evaluating platform conduct in light of evolving digital market realities.

1. Monopoly and Reduction of Competition

The Guidelines recognize the structural characteristics inherent to multi-sided platforms, particularly the presence of network effects, whereby growth on one side of the platform increases value on the other sides. This dynamic can lead to market concentration, create significant barriers to entry, and foster dependency on a limited number of dominant platforms.

In assessing whether a platform holds dominant market power, the TCCT does not rely solely on price-based indicators. Additional factors considered include:

  • Control over data and algorithms;
  • The ability to determine or influence commercial terms;
  • The degree of user dependency on the platform.

Conduct that may constitute monopolization or a reduction or restriction of competition includes predatory pricing, excessive pricing, exclusionary contractual conditions, refusal to deal, and exclusive arrangements that prevent users or business partners from engaging with competing platforms.

2. Unfair Trade Practices

Even where a platform does not qualify as a dominant operator, certain conduct may still constitute an unfair trade practice—particularly where a significant imbalance of bargaining power exists between the platform and its business users, such as small- and medium-sized sellers.

The Guidelines identify the following conduct as potentially unfair:

  • The imposition of rate parity clauses restricting sellers from offering lower prices on other platforms;
  • Charging excessive or discriminatory commission fees, advertising fees, logistics fees, or other service charges;
  • Unilateral modification of contractual terms;
  • Discriminatory product ranking, visibility reduction, or self-preferencing of the platform’s own products or affiliated businesses;
  • Arbitrary suspension or removal of seller accounts without fair and transparent procedures.

Such conduct may distort competitive conditions and undermine fairness in digital markets, even where it does not rise to the level of monopolistic abuse.

3. Multi-Sided Platform Considerations

The Guidelines underscore that multi-sided platforms differ fundamentally from traditional businesses, as they operate across multiple interdependent markets—including those for sellers, consumers, advertisers, logistics providers, and payment services.

Accordingly, the assessment of platform conduct requires an analysis of overall competitive effects across all sides of the platform, rather than a single-market approach. Particular attention is given to data-driven practices, including the use of third-party data (data leveraging), algorithm-based decision-making, ranking systems, and platform design features that may materially affect competition.

Key Takeaways

Regulators assess competitive effects across all sides of the platform, with particular focus on the use of data, algorithms, and self-preferencing practices.

Multi-sided platforms are subject to heightened competition law scrutiny due to network effects, data control, and user dependency.

Market power may exist even in the absence of direct fees, requiring assessment beyond traditional price-based indicators.

Monopolistic and exclusionary conduct—such as predatory pricing, exclusivity arrangements, or refusal to deal—may constitute a reduction or restriction of competition.

Unfair trade practices can arise independently of dominance, particularly where there is a significant imbalance of bargaining power between platforms and business users.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Expanding Trade Network: Key Updates on FTAs with Partner Countries

Overview

In the context of an increasingly competitive and rapidly evolving global economy, Thailand has placed greater emphasis on expanding its international trade partnerships. The government has accelerated negotiations for Free Trade Agreements (“FTAs”) with key partner countries to enhance competitiveness and reduce trade barriers. Concurrently, Thailand is strengthening bilateral economic relations—such as with the Republic of South Africa—through strategic discussions aimed at promoting trade, exports, and investment. This approach reflects Thailand’s proactive commitment to creating long-term economic opportunities and expanding global market access.

Thailand’s Recent Developments

1. Acceleration of Free Trade Agreement Negotiations

In response to Thailand being subject to investigations under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 (B.E. 2517), which may result in additional import tariffs and potential investment restrictions, the Thai government has coordinated with the Ministry of Commerce to establish a dedicated task force. This task force is responsible for closely monitoring and addressing the potential impacts of such measures.

The Department of Trade Negotiations (“DTN”) has accelerated adjustments to Thailand’s international trade strategy, positioning FTAs as a key mechanism to diversify risk and mitigate trade barriers arising from U.S. trade actions. Priority negotiations are being fast-tracked with major partners, including the European Union (“EU”), the Republic of Korea, and ASEAN–Canada, with the objective of concluding these agreements by 2026 (B.E. 2569).

Thailand is also advancing previously signed FTAs that are currently undergoing domestic ratification, including agreements with the European Free Trade Association (“EFTA”), Bhutan, and Sri Lanka, with entry into force targeted for 1 January 2027 (B.E. 2570). In parallel, Thailand is upgrading existing agreements, such as the ASEAN–India FTA and the Thailand–Peru FTA, with completion expected by 2026 (B.E. 2569).

In addition, Thailand is actively participating in negotiations on the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement (“DEFA”), which is expected to play a pivotal role in advancing the regional digital economy. DEFA is anticipated to facilitate digital trade, reshape ASEAN’s market and production landscape, and enhance investor confidence, with negotiations scheduled for completion by November 2026 (B.E. 2569).

2. Economic Cooperation between Thailand and the Republic of South Africa

The Ministry of Commerce has adopted a proactive approach to strengthening trade cooperation between Thailand and the Republic of South Africa through bilateral consultations. These efforts focus on promoting high-potential exports and enhancing economic collaboration to achieve tangible and measurable outcomes, thereby expanding trade channels and export markets.

Both countries have emphasized the importance of advancing a strategic partnership aimed at reducing logistical and financial barriers to trade while promoting efficient bilateral exports. South Africa is well-positioned to serve as a distribution hub for the African region, while Thailand can function as a gateway for African products into ASEAN markets.

Furthermore, both parties have agreed to leverage the existing cooperation framework between Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) and Invest South Africa to systematically promote bilateral investment and facilitate cross-border business activities.

Implications

Exporters should conduct thorough reviews of applicable rules of origin and sourcing requirements and, where necessary, adjust their production structures to ensure eligibility for tariff preferences under Thailand’s FTAs.

To mitigate risks arising from U.S. trade measures, exporters are advised to adopt proactive strategies, including revising pricing structures and diversifying export markets. Businesses operating in affected sectors should closely monitor ongoing developments in the global trade landscape to ensure timely and effective responses.

Conclusion

Thailand’s proactive approach to international trade policy demonstrates the effective integration of legal instruments and strategic trade initiatives. The acceleration of FTA negotiations, coupled with the expansion of bilateral cooperation with key partner countries, serves as a critical mechanism for risk diversification and resilience in an increasingly volatile global trading environment.

These developments underscore Thailand’s adaptability to evolving international economic conditions and its strategic response to external trade pressures, particularly those arising from U.S. trade measures. Ultimately, such efforts aim to strengthen Thailand’s long-term economic competitiveness and enhance trade security.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Fast-Tracking Investment in Thailand: How BOI’s “Fast Pass” Is Unlocking Growth

Introduction

Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) is recalibrating its investment promotion strategy in response to mounting global uncertainty. Heightened geopolitical tensions — particularly in the Middle East — are accelerating supply chain diversification and prompting multinational corporations to reassess their production footprints. Against this backdrop, Thailand is positioning itself as a “Safe and Secure Production Base” and a preferred investment destination within the region.

To address key structural bottlenecks, the BOI has introduced the “Fast Pass” system — an integrated framework designed to expedite approval processes and remove constraints that have historically impeded foreign investment. The initiative strengthens coordination with key regulatory authorities, including the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) and the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), and focuses on three priority areas: access to reliable and clean energy, industrial land availability, and workforce readiness.

Concerted action across these pillars is intended to attract high-value industries, including electric vehicles (EVs), semiconductors, digital infrastructure, and renewable energy, while reinforcing Thailand’s standing as a resilient and competitive global manufacturing hub.

Addressing Investment Constraints Through BOI’s Fast Pass

The Fast Pass program is designed to streamline approvals and permitting processes for large-scale investment projects, reflecting Thailand’s ambition to become a “Preferred Regional Investment Destination.” The BOI has identified three strategic priorities: maintaining leadership in the EV sector through comprehensive ecosystem support and localization; accelerating semiconductor industry development to establish a high-technology manufacturing base; and advancing clean energy initiatives alongside the expansion of data center capacity to 2,000 megawatts.

In parallel, the BOI is implementing targeted reforms under the Fast Pass framework to address the three principal constraints facing foreign investors.

1. Electricity and Clean Energy

Rapid industrial expansion in the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) has strained power supply, particularly for high-technology and data center projects. In response, the BOI is working in close coordination with the ERC to accelerate the implementation of both near-term and long-term energy strategies.

Key measures include the pre-confirmation of electricity availability through an optimized “power map” prior to BOI application submission, the facilitation of Direct Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for renewable energy, and the integration of energy management frameworks developed in collaboration with the ERC and EGAT.

2. Land Zoning and Site Development

The availability of industrial land remains a critical enabler of investment; however, regulatory processes related to zoning and the conversion of public land have historically caused significant delays. Under the Fast Pass framework, the BOI is expediting reviews of industrial zones, urban plans, and relevant regulatory guidelines, while promoting the conversion of public land for industrial use within a condensed timeline of approximately one year.

In addition, new regulatory guidelines governing excavation, land reclamation, and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) — effective April 2026 — are expected to streamline site preparation. Broader urban planning reforms are also underway to expand the supply of industrial land and accommodate future large-scale investments.

3. Workforce Development

The BOI has set a target of developing 20,000 skilled personnel in the semiconductor sector within five years. For BOI-promoted projects in advanced industries such as semiconductors and electronics, the Fast Pass framework mandates structured training programs for Thai workers, alongside measures to facilitate the conversion of select work permits into visa arrangements for highly skilled foreign professionals.

These initiatives support Thailand’s broader policy objectives across emerging sectors — including medical and wellness industries — while enhancing national resilience in the areas of food security, energy security, supply chain continuity, and human capital development.

To date, Fast Pass projects with a combined investment value exceeding USD 5 billion have received BOI promotion approvals, with several projects already completed and others under active monitoring. By addressing these structural constraints, the BOI is reinforcing four key pillars of national stability — food security, clean energy and electricity, supply chain resilience (spanning industries such as hard disk drives and circuit boards), and human capital — to attract risk-averse multinational investors seeking long-term certainty.

Key Takeaways for Investors

Thailand’s BOI is moving beyond conventional tax incentives to focus on resolving the real operational challenges investors encounter — a shift that makes projects easier to implement and more predictable over the long term.

1. More Coordinated and Practical Problem-Solving

The BOI is adopting a more integrated approach by simultaneously addressing critical issues such as energy supply, land availability, and workforce readiness. This coordinated strategy reduces uncertainty and enables investors to plan and execute projects with greater confidence from inception through to completion.

2. A Faster and Smoother Investment Process Through “Fast Pass”

The Fast Pass system accelerates approvals and removes major bottlenecks — particularly for large-scale projects in priority sectors such as electric vehicles, semiconductors, clean energy, and data centers.

3. A Stronger and More Resilient Manufacturing Base

Ongoing reforms in energy security, supply chain management, and workforce development are consolidating Thailand’s position as a stable, sustainable, and future-ready manufacturing hub.

Conclusion

Thailand’s BOI “Fast Pass” framework represents a meaningful strategic shift — from a purely incentive-driven model to an execution-focused approach that directly tackles key structural constraints. By streamlining regulatory processes and enhancing coordination among relevant authorities, Thailand is materially improving the ease of doing business for large-scale, high-value investments.

Through targeted reforms in energy access, land development, and workforce readiness, the Fast Pass system not only accelerates project delivery but also strengthens long-term operational certainty. These developments carry particular significance amid ongoing global supply chain realignment and elevated geopolitical risk.

In this environment, Thailand is emerging as a strategically positioned and increasingly compelling investment destination. Early engagement with the BOI — particularly regarding its Fast Pass pipeline and priority sectors — may offer investors a meaningful first-mover advantage as the country cements its role as a resilient, future-ready manufacturing hub in Southeast Asia.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand FDA — Proposed Food Labelling Rules for Prepackaged Foods

The Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 450 B.E. 2567 (2024) (“MOPH Notification No. 450”), issued pursuant to the Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979), constitutes Thailand’s current regulatory framework governing the labelling of food in sealed containers. Certain aspects of the existing regime, however, are no longer fully aligned with prevailing international standards or evolving market practices — particularly with respect to allergen disclosure, food additive labelling, exemptions from labelling requirements, and the absence of mechanisms for digital labelling.

In response, the Ministry of Public Health has issued a draft notification on the labelling of food in sealed containers (the “Draft Notification”), which introduces a series of targeted amendments designed to strengthen consumer protection and modernize the applicable regulatory requirements. The Draft Notification is currently open for public consultation from 18 March to 16 April 2026.

Key Proposed Amendment

The Draft Notification introduces several substantive amendments, which may be broadly categorized into four key areas, as summarized below.

1.  Revision of Exemptions from Labelling Requirements

Under MOPH Notification No. 450, certain foods sold directly by manufacturers to consumers are exempt from labelling requirements, provided that the manufacturer is able to convey the relevant information to consumers directly.

The Draft Notification narrows this exemption by introducing nine categories of food that must bear labels in all circumstances, irrespective of the method of sale or whether information can be communicated directly to consumers. These categories are as follows:

  • food additives;
  • infant formula and infant formula for special medical purposes;
  • follow-on formula for infants (6–12 months) and young children;
  • supplementary food for infants and young children;
  • foods intended for special dietary purposes;
  • dietary supplements;
  • foods containing added extracts, nutrients, or synthetic substances;
  • foods subject to specific warning requirements under other applicable notifications; and
  • foods subject to specific manufacturing or storage requirements under applicable regulations.

This amendment reflects a risk-based regulatory approach, ensuring that higher-risk food categories remain subject to mandatory labelling requirements in all cases.

2.  Enhancement of Allergen Labelling Requirements

The Draft Notification revises allergen labelling requirements to improve clarity and achieve greater alignment with international standards. Key changes include:

  • Expansion of the allergen list:
  • the addition of sesame as a priority allergen; and
  • the inclusion of celery, mustard, and lupin as national and regional allergens.
  • Clarification of tree nut categories, with specific identification of almond, cashew, hazelnut, pecan, pistachio, walnut, Brazil nut, macadamia, and pine nut (and their derived products).
  • Removal of lactose from the allergen list, on the basis that lactose intolerance is not classified as an allergenic reaction under applicable scientific and regulatory frameworks.

These amendments are designed to enhance transparency for consumers and to bring Thailand’s allergen labelling regime into closer conformity with international best practice.

3.  Revision of Food Additive Labelling Requirements

The Draft Notification further refines the requirements governing food additive disclosure, with a view to better reflecting actual manufacturing practices. In particular, it permits additives that serve multiple technological functions to declare additional relevant functions, provided that their use is consistent with those functions.

At the same time, certain functions are no longer required to be declared on labels, specifically:

  • carriers; and
  • packaging gases.

These revisions seek to strike an appropriate balance between technical accuracy and regulatory practicability, reducing unnecessary complexity in labelling while maintaining an adequate level of transparency for consumers.

4.  Introduction of Digital Labelling

A significant development under the Draft Notification is the formal introduction of optional digital labelling — a mechanism not currently permitted under the existing framework. Digital labelling may be implemented through formats such as QR codes, NFC technology, or barcodes, and will be available for most food categories, with the exception of certain higher-risk products such as infant foods and foods intended for special dietary purposes.

Importantly, digital labelling is not intended to replace physical labels in their entirety. The following core information must continue to appear on the physical packaging:

  • product name;
  • food registration number;
  • net content;
  • list of ingredients;
  • allergen information;
  • warnings; and
  • expiry date or best-before date.

This approach reflects a broader shift towards technology-enabled regulatory compliance, while ensuring that essential information remains immediately accessible to consumers at the point of sale.

Current Status

The Draft Notification preserves the core regulatory framework established under the Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979). Several points of clarification are noteworthy:

  • Pre-approval requirements are maintained for specific higher-risk food categories — including infant formula and foods intended for special dietary purposes — given the potential consequences of inaccurate labelling for consumer health and safety.
  • No dedicated committee mechanism is introduced under the Draft Notification.
  • The Draft Notification does not itself prescribe criminal penalties; however, non-compliance remains subject to sanctions under the Food Act.
  • Regulatory authorities retain discretionary powers in reviewing labelling content, including the authority to prohibit the use of certain wording were considered appropriate.

Key Takeaway

  • Thailand is transitioning towards a more risk-based and internationally aligned food labelling regime.
  • Labelling exemptions will be significantly narrowed, with particular focus on higher-risk product categories.
  • Allergen disclosure requirements will become more comprehensive and precise.
  • Food additive labelling rules are being streamlined to better reflect prevailing industry practice.
  • Digital labelling is being formally recognized, marking an important step towards modern and flexible compliance tools.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

U.S. Tariff Developments Post Supreme Court Ruling

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026) represents a pivotal development in international trade law. The Court held that the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad-based import tariffs exceeded the scope of authority delegated to the President of the United States.

Although the ruling establishes clear constitutional limits on executive tariff authority, it does not diminish the central role of tariffs in U.S. trade policy. The administration’s swift recourse to alternative statutory mechanisms underscores continued reliance on tariff measures and heightens uncertainty for Thai exporters and other affected parties.

1.  Constitutional Limits on Tariff Authority

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the constitutional authority to set tariffs is vested in Congress. The Court concluded that IEEPA does not provide sufficiently clear authorization for the imposition of broad-based import duties; accordingly, it cannot serve as a valid legal basis for such measures.

Notably, the Court declined to order immediate remedies. Instead, it remanded the question of refunds to the United States Court of International Trade, leaving implementation to be resolved through established customs law procedures.

2.  Refunds: A Legal Entitlement Subject to Procedure

Although the tariffs have been declared unlawful, recovery of duties paid is not automatic. Importers must act within the U.S. customs law framework, including by filing timely protests and, where necessary, pursuing claims before the United States Court of International Trade.

Recent developments indicate that the Court of International Trade is moving toward a more structured refund mechanism, potentially inclusive of interest. However, the process remains procedurally complex and administratively burdensome, requiring proactive engagement from affected importers.

3.  Policy Realignment: Section 122 Tariffs

In response to the ruling, the U.S. President promptly invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a temporary tariff on imports from all countries. This measure reflects a strategic adjustment, demonstrating that the executive branch retains meaningful statutory tools to sustain its tariff policy objectives.

Key features of the Section 122 measure include:

  • A uniform global tariff rate of 10–15%;
  • A statutory ceiling of 15%;
  • A duration of up to 150 days, unless extended by Congress; and
  • Application in addition to existing duty obligations.

4.  Section 301 Investigation: Implications for 16 Jurisdictions

On March 11, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated a Section 301 investigation covering 16 jurisdictions, including Thailand. The investigation examines whether certain trade practices constitute unreasonable or discriminatory conduct, with particular attention to structural overcapacity in the manufacturing sector.

The scope of the investigation remains broad and may extend to digital trade, pharmaceutical pricing, market access, and environmental policies. Under Section 301, the USTR is empowered to impose remedial measures, including additional tariffs and investment restrictions.

Thailand has been identified as a jurisdiction of concern, primarily owing to relatively low capacity utilization in the automotive, machinery, and rubber sectors, as well as concerns regarding potential tariff circumvention linked to increased foreign direct investment. These factors may result in heightened scrutiny of Thailand’s role in global supply chains.

The procedural timeline is as follows:

  • Government consultations;
  • Written submissions: March 17 – April 15, 2026;
  • Public hearings: commencing May 5, 2026; and
  • Expected completion within 150 days of initiation.

5.  Implications for Thai Exporters

The evolving U.S. tariff framework presents several material risks for Thai exporters:

  • Loss of competitive advantage: A uniform global tariff eliminates country-specific preferential treatment, reducing pricing differentiation.
  • Policy uncertainty: Temporary measures may be extended, modified, or replaced with more burdensome instruments.
  • Cost impact: Additional duties directly affect product pricing, margins, and overall competitiveness in the U.S. market.
  • Regulatory volatility: Rapid legal and policy shifts are increasingly a defining feature of U.S. trade policy, necessitating ongoing monitoring and agile response strategies.

6.  Practical Considerations

Thai exporters are advised to adopt a proactive and structured approach to managing tariff exposure. Recommended actions include:

  • Reviewing customs classification to ensure accuracy and minimize the risk of misclassification disputes;
  • Adjusting pricing and cost structures to reflect prevailing tariff obligations;
  • Monitoring import timing in accordance with U.S. customs entry requirements;
  • Coordinating with U.S. importers to preserve and exercise available refund rights; and
  • Conducting scenario planning to anticipate and respond to potential policy changes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump establishes meaningful constitutional constraints on executive tariff authority; however, it does not diminish the central role of tariffs in U.S. trade policy. The administration’s swift transition to alternative instruments — notably Section 122 and Section 301 — confirms continued reliance on tariff-based measures as tools of commercial and geopolitical leverage.

While refund opportunities may arise for duties previously paid under IEEPA authority, recovery remains procedurally complex and requires active legal engagement. For Thai exporters, the combination of heightened policy uncertainty, increased cost pressures, and intensified regulatory scrutiny underscores the imperative for proactive compliance, rigorous strategic planning, and the full integration of legal considerations into business decision-making.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

FDA: Food and Drug Administration Proposes Revised Food Advertising Notification

The Thai Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has issued a draft notification on food advertising (B.E. ….) (the “Draft Notification”), which proposes a comprehensive modernization of Thailand’s food advertising regulations. The existing framework, governed by the FDA Notification on Food Advertising B.E. 2564 (2021) (the “2021 Notification”), has been in effect since 31 March 2021. The Draft Notification is currently open for public consultation until 16 April 2026.

This initiative seeks to address practical challenges that have arisen since the implementation of the 2021 Notification. Key issues include the framework’s limited adaptability to evolving digital marketing practices, shifting consumer expectations, and the emergence of new product categories such as hemp-, cannabis-, and kratom-based items. The proposed revisions aim to resolve ambiguities faced by businesses, particularly concerning advertising claims and sustainability-related communications, while strengthening protections against misleading advertisements.

The Draft Notification introduces targeted amendments across five principal areas to enhance regulatory clarity, close existing gaps, and provide greater operational flexibility without compromising consumer safeguards.

Introduction of Product-Specific Advertising Rules:

The Draft Notification establishes dedicated advertising standards for specific food categories that were not adequately addressed under the current regime. These include:

  • Food supplements containing kratom; and
  • Food products incorporating hemp seeds, hemp oil, hemp protein, cannabis, or cannabidiol (CBD).

These provisions are designed to ensure appropriate oversight of these sensitive and increasingly prevalent product categories.

Revision of Prohibited Claims (Annex 1):

Annex 1, which lists prohibited claims regarding the quality, benefits, or properties of food, has been substantially revised. The previous fixed list of prohibited expressions is replaced by a broader, principle-based standard. Prohibited claims are now defined as those that create exaggerated or misleading expectations concerning the quality, benefits, or properties of food.

Specific examples that remain expressly prohibited include:

  • Terms such as “miraculous” or “extraordinary”;
  • Claims implying a cure, guaranteed results, or the absence of side effects; and
  • Statements suggesting endorsement or approval by the FDA.

The revised approach emphasizes the overall impression conveyed by the advertisement, enabling a more nuanced, case-by-case evaluation by regulators.

Expansion of Advertising Not Requiring Prior Approval (Annex 2):

The scope of advertising exempt from prior FDA approval has been broadened to better accommodate contemporary marketing practices. Permitted content now includes:

  • Expanded use of descriptive expressions related to taste, texture, and sensory attributes; and
  • Sustainability-related messaging, such as recycling symbols, carbon footprint indicators, and green certifications, provided they satisfy applicable conditions.

These updates facilitate more flexible communication while preserving safeguards against misleading practices.

Clarification of Advertising Requiring Prior Approval (Annex 3):

The Draft Notification provides clearer criteria for advertising that necessitate prior FDA approval, specifically claims relating to quality, benefits, or functional properties. Examples include:

  • Functional claims (e.g., those concerning probiotics);
  • “Free-from” claims (e.g., gluten-free); and
  • References to FDA-related awards or quality marks.

This clarification is expected to reduce uncertainty and promote greater consistency in regulatory application.

Revision of Warning Requirements in Advertising (Annex 4):

The framework for mandatory warning statements in advertisements has been updated to focus on relevance to specific advertising media. Additional warning obligations have been introduced for products involving kratom, cannabis, and hemp. The revised wording aims to enhance clarity and consistency across different media formats.

Regulatory Position:

The core elements of the existing regulatory framework remain intact:

  • Advertising concerning the quality, benefits, or properties of food continues to require prior FDA approval;
  • No new criminal penalties are introduced;
  • Non-compliance remains subject to penalties under the Food Act B.E. 2522 (1979); and
  • Regulatory authorities retain broad discretion in assessing whether advertisements are misleading or non-compliant.

Key Takeaways:

The Draft Notification represents a significant modernization of Thailand’s food advertising regime. Principal changes include:

  • Introduction of product-specific rules for emerging categories such as kratom-, hemp-, and cannabis-based products;
  • Transition to a principle-based approach for evaluating misleading claims;
  • Greater flexibility for descriptive and sustainability-related advertising;
  • Enhanced guidance on claims requiring prior approval; and
  • Updated warning requirements tailored to advertising media.

These amendments collectively promote a more structured, transparent, and market-responsive regulatory environment. As the Draft Notification remains subject to public consultation and has not yet been finalized, businesses are advised to monitor subsequent developments closely. It is recommended that affected entities evaluate the potential implications for their advertising strategies, internal review processes, and overall compliance frameworks.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Employment vs Liberal Profession

Thai Tax Treatment of Physicians under Sections 40 (1) and 40 (6) of the Thailand Revenue Code

Background

As Thailand’s healthcare sector continues to evolve, the engagement structure between physicians and private hospitals has become increasingly diverse. Traditional employment relationships are often replaced or supplemented by hybrid arrangements, including revenue-sharing models and per-case compensation structures.

Against this backdrop, a recurring tax issue arises – Should a physician’s income be classified as employment income under Section 40 (1), or as income from a liberal profession under Section 40 (6) of the Revenue Code?

The distinction is critical, as it directly affects the availability of deductions and the overall tax burden.

Legal Framework

The Thailand Revenue Code distinguishes between:

  • Section 40 (1): income derived from employment, including salaries, wages and similar benefits; and
  • Section 40 (6): income derived from liberal professions, namely arts of healing, expressly including the medical profession.

While the statutory wording appears clear, its application in practice is highly fact-specific and has been shaped by both judicial interpretation and tax rulings issued by the Revenue Department in response to tax inquiries under applicable law.

Judicial Approach : substance over form

Thai Supreme Court (Tax Division) jurisprudence has consistently adopted a substance-over-form approach in determining the nature of a physician’s income.

In Supreme Court Judgment No. 1802/2533, the Court considered a physician engaged by a private hospital under a service-based remuneration model. The physician exercised discretion in treating patients and was compensated based on services rendered.

The Court held that such income could fall within Section 40 (6), emphasizing that:

•   the exercise of liberal profession judgment is central to medical practice; and

•   the use of hospital facilities does not, in itself, create an employment relationship.

However, the Court made clear that where the factual circumstances demonstrate:

•   Subordination to hospital management;

•   Fixed working hours; and

•   Characteristics typical of employment,

the income must be classified under Section 40 (1).

Revenue Department Rulings : administrative perspective

The Revenue Department has addressed similar scenarios through a number of rulings, which largely align with the Supreme Court’s approach, albeit with a stronger focus on operational control.

In these rulings, the Revenue Department has generally taken the position that:

•   Physicians receiving fixed monthly remuneration;

•   Working under assigned schedules; and

•   Operating subject to hospital direction

derive income under Section 40 (1), regardless of how the contractual relationship is described.

Conversely, the Revenue Department has accepted classification under Section 40 (6) where:

•   Remuneration is based on actual services performed (e.g., per patient or procedure);

•   Income varies depending on workload; and

•   The physician retains meaningful professional independence.

Particular weight is often given to whether the physician bears economic variability, which is viewed as indicative of independent professional activity.

Converging Principles

Taken together, the Supreme Court decisions and Revenue Department rulings establish a consistent principle:

The classification of a physician’s income depends on the true nature of the working relationship, not the contractual label or the professional title.

Importantly, while medicine is recognized as a liberal profession under Section 40 (6), this does not automatically determine the tax treatment in every case. The decisive factor remains the degree of independence versus control.

Practical Implications

For physicians, misclassification may result in reassessment, denial of deductions and potential penalties. Reliance on contractual wording alone is insufficient; actual working conditions must support the intended tax treatment.

For hospitals, engagement structures should be carefully reviewed. Arrangements involving:

•   Fixed or guaranteed payments;

•   Strict scheduling requirements; and

•   Integration into organizational hierarchies

may be vulnerable to recharacterization as employment relationships.

Hybrid models, common in practice, present the greatest risk, particularly where contractual independence is not reflected in day-to-day operations.

Key Takeaways

•   Substance prevails over form : Courts and the Revenue Department will look beyond contractual labels to the actual working relationship.

•   Professional status is not decisive : Although medicine is a liberal profession, not all physicians earn income under Section 40 (6).

•   Control is a key indicator : Fixed hours, supervision, and integration into hospital management point toward Section 40 (1).

•   Payment structure matters : Fixed remuneration suggests employment, while case-based or revenue-sharing arrangements support Section 40 (6).

•   Economic risk is relevant : Variable income linked to performance with indicative of independent professional activity.

•   Alignment is essential: Contracts, payment terms and actual practices must be consistent to withstand scrutiny.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles