#antidumping2026

For businesses operating in Thailand's dynamic economy—whether domestic enterprises or multinational corporations—trade disputes are an inevitable reality. From contract disagreements between suppliers and buyers to complex international trade remedy investigations, the manner in which a dispute is resolved can determine the survival of a commercial relationship, the recovery of assets, or the continued viability of market access. As Thailand strengthens its position as a regional trade and investment hub in Southeast Asia, understanding the full spectrum of dispute resolution mechanisms has become essential for any business with exposure to the Thai market.

This comprehensive guide explores the landscape of trade disputes in Thailand in 2026, covering alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options, international trade remedies, and strategic considerations for businesses facing potential conflicts.

Part I: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Thailand

Why ADR Is Gaining Traction

Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through alternative dispute resolution. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has distinct advantages: it suspends limitation periods, involves no court fees, and can conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable and subject to only limited grounds of appeal.

In parallel, the Mediation Act supports out-of-court mediation for qualifying disputes within defined subject-matter and monetary thresholds. Valid settlement agreements reached under this law may be enforced through a streamlined court process.

Thailand's arbitration framework has also matured into a reliable, pro-enforcement framework under the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards subject only to the convention's limited defenses.

Institutional Options for Arbitration in Thailand

Thailand offers two primary institutional options for arbitration, each with distinct characteristics that affect cost, timing, and enforceability.

The Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) was established under the Office of the Judiciary in 1989. Its processes are well understood by Thai courts, and cases are commonly conducted in Thai or English. The TAI handles a wide range of disputes, including domestic and international commercial matters and contract-related disputes. Because it is funded by the government, the TAI does not charge administrative service fees; parties pay only the actual costs of proceedings, including arbitrator fees and transcription costs. This makes the TAI a cost-effective choice for Thailand-seated disputes.

The Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) is an independent institution operating under the Ministry of Justice since 2015. It offers arbitration and mediation services with a strong international focus. The THAC provides panels and procedures designed to meet the needs of international users, making it an attractive choice for cross-border disputes. Parties are responsible for administrative fees as well as the actual costs of arbitration. The THAC also offers a small-claims track for disputes under THB 35 million.

Matching the Forum to the Dispute

The choice between TAI and THAC should be driven by the nature of the dispute.

For Thailand-centric and enforcement-heavy matters, the TAI is frequently a strong default choice. Its institutional position within the judiciary provides practical advantages for disputes likely to require court involvement, such as interim measures, tribunal assistance, or award enforcement.

For cross-border disputes, the THAC is designed with international commercial users in mind. Its rules, administration, and panel composition are tailored to transactions involving foreign investors or activities spanning multiple countries. A THAC clause can help maintain neutrality and make dispute management smoother.

Mediation Options: Court-Annexed or Out-of-Court

Court-annexed mediation is often the first choice for domestic civil disputes where speed and enforceability are paramount. Pre-action mediation involves no fees, suspends prescription while discussions are ongoing, and may conclude with a consent judgment that is immediately enforceable. In-case mediation can occur at any stage after filing, including before trial or during evidence presentation.

Out-of-court mediation under the Mediation Act is attractive for confidential or relationship-sensitive disputes, particularly those with cross-border elements. It is available for civil disputes that meet the scope and value limits defined by the law, including certain categories such as land-related disputes (excluding ownership), inheritance disputes among heirs, and civil claims not exceeding THB 5 million.

Sector-Specific Dispute Forums

Thailand has developed dedicated dispute resolution mechanisms for certain sectors, administered by regulators or industry bodies. These forums can be materially faster and cheaper than general arbitration or litigation.

In the insurance sector, both the Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) and the Thai General Insurance Association (TGIA) offer arbitration and mediation services for insurance-related disputes. Motor and coverage claims are also often resolved through industry arbitration mechanisms.

In the intellectual property sector, the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) provides ADR mechanisms for the resolution of IP disputes.

In the capital markets sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administers dispute resolution mechanisms for capital markets–related matters.

For recurring, low- to mid-value disputes with standardized fact patterns, these sector-specific forums often deliver the best outcomes in terms of time and overall cost.

Part II: International Trade Disputes and Remedies

Beyond commercial contract disputes between private parties, Thailand is also increasingly involved in international trade disputes at the government-to-government level. These disputes typically involve trade remedy investigations—anti-dumping, countervailing duties, and safeguard measures—which can significantly impact importers, exporters, and domestic industries.

Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations

Thailand has an active trade remedies regime administered by the Department of Foreign Trade's Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Division. Recent cases demonstrate the ongoing relevance of these measures.

In January 2026, Thailand's anti-dumping and countervailing duty sub-committee issued a final ruling in the second anti-dumping sunset review concerning cold-rolled carbon steel coils and non-coils originating from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The ruling maintained the original dumping margins, continuing to impose anti-dumping duties at rates ranging from 9.24% to 20.11% on a CIF basis for another five years.

This case illustrates an important point for businesses: trade remedy measures can remain in place for decades. The original investigation began in 2012, with affirmative determinations issued in 2014. Sunset reviews have since confirmed the measures in 2020 and again in 2026.

Thailand as a Respondent in Foreign Trade Proceedings

Thai exporters are also subject to trade remedy investigations in other jurisdictions. In March 2026, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) made determinations concerning imports of silicon metal from Angola, Laos, and Thailand. The Commission determined that a U.S. industry is materially injured by reason of imports from Angola and Laos that are sold at less than fair value and subsidized.

For Thailand specifically, the USITC found that the imports of silicon metal from Thailand that the U.S. Department of Commerce had determined are subsidized were negligible. As a result, the countervailing duty investigation concerning Thailand was terminated.

The U.S. Section 301 Investigation into Thailand

A significant development in 2026 is the ongoing U.S. Section 301 investigation into Thailand. The current dispute stems from two major U.S. Section 301 actions launched in March 2026. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) opened investigations into structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors covering 16 economies, including Thailand, and separately launched forced-labor-related investigations covering 60 economies.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the USTR to examine whether foreign government practices are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce, potentially leading to tariff or non-tariff action.

Thailand has been actively engaging with U.S. officials to address concerns. Deputy Prime Minister and Commerce Minister Suphajee Suthumpun has indicated that Thailand submitted detailed explanatory documents on all issues on April 15, 2026. The two key issues of interest to the U.S. side are excess capacity and forced labor. Thailand has also clarified measures to prevent transshipment—the practice of bringing goods from third countries through Thailand for export to the United States.

The outcome is expected between mid and late June 2026, with a final deadline of no later than July 24, 2026. The case is economically sensitive for Thailand because the U.S. can consider measures by country and by industrial sector after the consultation process.

Part III: Commercial Litigation in Thai Courts

When ADR and trade remedy proceedings are not applicable, or when a party prefers judicial resolution, commercial litigation in Thai courts remains an option. However, understanding the distinct characteristics of Thai civil procedure is essential.

Procedural Differences from Common Law Systems

Thai civil procedure differs from common law systems in several important respects. There is no discovery process comparable to that in the United States or other common law jurisdictions. Evidence must generally be presented at trial, and cases are decided by judges rather than juries.

Timelines and Costs

First-instance proceedings in commercial litigation typically take 12 to 24 months. Appeals to the Court of Appeal add another 12 to 18 months, and Supreme Court review can add a further 12 to 24 months. In total, litigants should budget for a process that can easily span three to five years.

Court filing fees are based on the claim value. Attorney fees are typically time-based or fixed depending on case complexity. The losing party may be ordered to pay a portion of the prevailing party's costs.

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards

A critical distinction exists between the enforcement of foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards in Thailand.

Foreign arbitral awards are generally enforceable under the Arbitration Act and the New York Convention. The Thai courts have shown increasing familiarity with arbitration and a more consistent willingness to support arbitral procedures. For example, Supreme Court Decision No. 4627/2565 upheld the lower court's judgment enforcing a foreign arbitral award by dismissing the respondent's petition seeking to set aside the enforcement application.

Foreign court judgments, however, face a different treatment. Thailand does not have a general statute for enforcing foreign court judgments. Enforcement typically requires re-litigation in Thai courts using the foreign judgment as evidence.

This distinction has significant strategic implications: parties entering contracts with Thai counterparties are generally better protected by including an arbitration clause providing for a recognized institutional framework than by relying on the jurisdiction of foreign courts.

Part IV: Strategic Considerations for Businesses

Drafting Effective Dispute Resolution Clauses

The arbitration clause is one of the most important legal provisions in a cross-border contract involving Thailand. A properly structured arbitration clause should address the scope of disputes covered, the seat of arbitration, the chosen institutional rules, the number of arbitrators, the language of proceedings, the governing law of the contract, and the method of appointment of the tribunal.

Weak drafting creates procedural uncertainty. Ambiguous clauses such as "disputes shall be referred to arbitration, but the parties may also submit to the Thai courts" invite jurisdictional disputes and parallel proceedings.

For Thailand-seated disputes involving Thai assets, the TAI often provides practical advantages. For cross-border arrangements with international counterparties, the THAC is frequently a better choice. Where sector-specific forums exist, they should be named expressly.

Practical Barriers in Thai Arbitration

Foreign parties should be aware of certain practical barriers in Thai arbitration. Powers of Attorney (POAs) must be executed by the client to appoint legal counsel, and a Deed of Lawyer Appointment is required for Thai court-related applications (such as enforcement of arbitral awards or applications for interim measures). If these documents are executed outside Thailand, they must be notarized and legalized at a Thai embassy and translated into Thai. These formalities can cause significant procedural delays.

Additionally, while amendments to the Arbitration Act in 2019 introduced a "Certificate" for foreign arbitrators and counsel to facilitate entry into Thailand, in practice, foreign arbitrators still require the necessary visa and work permit, which can be time-consuming and expensive.

The Availability of Assets in Thailand for Enforcement

For businesses considering cross-border dispute resolution, the availability of assets in Thailand is a significant strategic factor. In many international disputes, parties ultimately have assets located in Thailand—whether in the form of bank accounts, real estate, equipment, shares in Thai subsidiaries, or receivables owed by Thai companies. This makes Thailand a strategically important jurisdiction for post-award enforcement, even when the arbitration is seated elsewhere.

As a signatory to the New York Convention, Thailand allows successful parties to enforce foreign arbitral awards against assets situated within its territory, giving claimants a meaningful opportunity to recover value.

Conclusion

Trade disputes in Thailand in 2026 are addressed through a mature and increasingly sophisticated framework. For commercial contract disputes, parties have meaningful choices between the TAI, THAC, court-annexed mediation, out-of-court mediation, and sector-specific forums. For international trade disputes, Thailand is both an active user of trade remedies and a respondent in foreign proceedings, requiring businesses to stay informed about ongoing investigations.

The key to successful dispute resolution in Thailand lies in preparation. Arbitration clauses should be drafted with precision, aligning the chosen institution with the nature of the transaction and the likely enforcement landscape. The strategic importance of the seat—Thailand's improving judicial practice and the availability of substantial assets within its borders—makes Thailand an increasingly attractive enforcement destination in cross-border disputes.

Whether through arbitration, mediation, or litigation, businesses that understand Thailand's dispute resolution architecture can protect their interests, manage risks, and navigate conflicts with confidence in the Kingdom's evolving legal environment.