It is a common misconception that importers will never win classification assessments by the Thai Customs Department. However, this belief is far from the truth. Importers can indeed prevail in customs assessments, and one of the most effective tools at their disposal is the World Customs Organization’s (WCO) Explanatory Notes. The WCO’s Explanatory Notes are an indispensable resource for understanding the Harmonized System (HS) of tariff nomenclature. These notes provide detailed commentary on the scope of each heading, including lists of main products included and excluded, technical descriptions, and practical guidance for identifying goods. By leveraging these notes, importers can ensure accurate classification of their goods, which is crucial for fair customs assessments. Understanding the Explanatory Notes The Explanatory Notes serve as the official interpretation of the Harmonized System at the international level. They offer clarity on the classification of goods, which can significantly impact the duties and taxes imposed on imports. For instance, the notes provide insights into the properties, methods of production, and uses of various goods, helping importers to classify their products correctly and avoid misclassification disputes. Thailand’s Customs Tariff Decree holds that the classification interpretation must follow the General Rules for Interpretation together with the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of the WCO. Most Thai Supreme Court decisions on classification also refer to the WCO’s Explanatory Notes and past rulings as the basis of their decisions. Successful Appeals There have been numerous instances of importers successfully appealing customs assessments by relying on the Explanatory Notes. For example, one importer of electronic components was initially assessed a higher duty due to misclassification. By presenting evidence from the Explanatory Notes that accurately described the components, the importer was able to demonstrate the correct classification and secure a favorable reassessment. Practical Steps for Importers To minimize the

On October 16, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee (ACCC) issued a notification to enhance anticorruption standards in public procurement. The new notification (officially “Notification of the Anti-Corruption Cooperation Committee on the Procurement Budget and Minimum Standards of the Policy and Directions for Anticorruption in Relation to Procurement according to Section 19 of the Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560”) supersedes previous guidelines and imposes stricter compliance requirements on business entities involved in the government procurement processes. The updates not only align with the goals of Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Administration Act B.E. 2560 (2017) but also reflect the government’s resolution to mitigate corruption, particularly in high-value public contracts. The ACCC’s new notification introduces additional definitions, lowers budget thresholds for compliance, and strengthens business obligations. Key Components The new notification continues the previous guidelines’ requirement that businesses seeking to bid on government procurement projects meet the specified minimum standards—such as communicating and implementing anticorruption policies at all organizational levels, establishing a code of conduct, and providing related training programs to employees. The notification also introduces a number of changes, the most notable of which are detailed below. “Entrepreneur” definition. The definition of this term is narrowed to entities involved in the public procurement bidding process. Previously, the definition broadly applied to all business entities engaged in selling goods or services. Threshold for mandatory compliance. The project budget threshold that necessitates compliance with the minimum standards is  THB 300 million—a reduction from the previous threshold of THB 500 million. Minimum standards to prevent unfair competition. The new notification introduces a specific definition for “disturbing fair competition,” establishing clear parameters around actions that disrupt competitive fairness within public procurement. Continued compliance requirements. Businesses’ compliance with the minimum standards must now extend from the date of bid submission to the

On May 17, 2024, Thailand’s Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) issued an amended Notification Concerning the Rules for Designating or Reviewing the List of High-Risk Customers Who Require Close Monitoring under the Ministerial Regulation on Customer Due Diligence B.E. 2563 (2020). This notification, which took effect the following day, updates the previous version of the notification from 2022 to cover cybercrimes listed under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023). The amended notification sets out the steps that all financial institutions in Thailand must take to manage money laundering risks and to comply with the AMLO’s mandatory Guidelines on Customer Due Diligence. Under the new notification, account holders suspected of engaging in or facilitating technological crimes, as recorded by the Anti Online Scam Operation Center (AOC), are to be classified as “high-risk persons.” The notification includes provisions for listing high-risk customers under two specific codes: HR-03-1: This code applies to individuals who are the subject of either a petition or a complaint related to a predicate offense accepted by the relevant inquiry officer and recorded as a criminal case. It also covers individuals whose bank accounts are suspected of being used to conduct transactions related to crimes under the Emergency Decree on Measures for the Prevention and Suppression of Technological Crimes B.E. 2566 (2023), with victims seeking prosecution. The names of individuals in this category are received from responsible agencies according to the Criminal Procedure Code or the AOC and are documented in a publicly accessible online notification system. HR-03-2: This code is for individuals involved in the commission of a predicate offense or those whose bank accounts are suspected of being used in such offenses, but whose cases have not been accepted or numbered by the relevant inquiry officer. Names