Sensitive to the difficulties many business entities and individuals are experiencing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Thai Customs Department recently implemented an important measure providing importers and exporters with the opportunity to temporarily stay pending customs duty obligations. This measure, which addresses procedures and conditions for requests to stay outstanding duty payments during the COVID-19 pandemic, was included in Announcement of Customs Department No. 103/2564, dated July 1, 2021, issued under sections 37 and 38 of the Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017). Background Under the Customs Act, importers and exporters have the right to petition the Customs Department for a stay of duty payments at various stages of the customs consideration process. For example, this right extends both to petitioners who are in the process of appealing a customs duty assessment, and to those who have filed claims in the Thai courts challenging a Customs Board of Appeals decision. On December 29, 2017, Main Announcement of the Customs Act on Principal, Methods and Conditions for Requesting a Stay of Outstanding Duty Payments No. 189/2560 was issued, stipulating that a party who appealed to the Customs Board of Appeals regarding customs duty assessment (or submitted a further complaint with the Thai courts challenging the board’s decision) can request a stay of payment of outstanding duties within thirty days from the date of filing an appeal regarding customs duty assessment. In mid-2020, the Customs Department responded to the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic by issuing relief measures—first a short-term easing of certain documentation requirements, followed by a longer-lasting (until September 30, 2021) extension of the deadline for requesting review of import duty penalties, fines, and surcharges on outstanding import duty amounts. Relief for Payment of Customs Duty With the pandemic still being acutely felt in Thailand in 2021, the Customs Department

The Thai Civil Court has ruled that the controversial Regulation 29, which allowed the cessation of internet service to those disseminating content that “may instigate fear among the people,” violated the right to freedom of speech in the Thai Constitution.

Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok office have authored the Thailand chapter of the 2021 edition of Chambers & Partners Aviation Finance & Leasing Guide. John Frangos, partner and deputy director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution practice; Santhapat Periera, partner in the firm’s corporate and commercial department; and Nuanchun Somboonvinij, senior associate in the firm’s dispute resolution group, provided the Thailand update for the publication, which covers the most important legal developments affecting aircraft lessors, lessees, and financiers in 32 jurisdictions worldwide. The guide provides in-depth details on the legal regimes affecting all aspects of aircraft sale and purchase, aircraft and engine leasing, and aircraft debt finance, including sale and lease agreement terms; taxation; lease registration and enforcement; lease assignment/novation; insurance and reinsurance; debt structuring; securities; liens; and many others that affect the day-to-day operations of leading players in the aviation industry. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with expert legal commentary focusing on practical legal issues affecting business, and enable readers to compare legislation and relevant procedures across a range of key jurisdictions. The full Chambers & Partners Aviation Finance & Leasing Guide—including the Thailand chapter—is available for free on the Chambers and Partners website, and the Thailand chapter be downloaded as a stand-alone PDF through the button below.

In January of 2017 the Computer Crimes Act, B.E 2550 (CCA) was amended, providing, amongst other things, additional detail on computer data classifications that justify orders to suspend online dissemination of content. With the additional clarity provided in the 2017 amendments, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society of Thailand began more actively pursuing online content that it considered to be in violation of the CCA or to be compromising Thai national security as provided in the Penal Code. As a result, the number of court orders issued to suspend the dissemination of online content has risen significantly over the past few years. At the same time as this escalation of court orders to take-down or otherwise remove certain online content, there had been little or no attempt to challenge such orders, largely due to the fact that orders are issued on an ex-parte basis and because of an absence of any clear method to appeal provided in the CCA. It was not until October of 2020, more than three years after the CCA amendments, that the public learned for the first time that a challenge to a previously issued court order for the takedown of content was successfully made. In such case, the court accepted a petition in opposition to the court takedown order and scheduled an additional hearing, ruling it proper to re-conduct the hearing and giving both parties the opportunity to provide the court with full information to decide on the challenge. While this was good news for the content providers and users in this case, the court, nonetheless, failed to provide specific criteria on what would justify a court ordering an opposition hearing or on when it would allow an opposition to even be filed with the court. In February of 2021 a second challenge