You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

October 30, 2015

Customs Audits: Understand the Process and Minimize Your Liability

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

It is common for Thai Customs Department officials to audit companies that import or export goods. The audits are generally random, and they almost always include a surprise inspection. Importers are rarely informed in advance by customs officials.

During a customs audit, importers or exporters (companies) that deal in highly regulated products, such as chemicals and other raw materials, may be subject to increased scrutiny. The audits are conducted to ensure that the companies are complying with Thai law, and they are not necessarily indicative of suspected wrongdoing.

Many companies do not understand the audit procedure and how the results can affect a business. Knowing customs procedures is important as violations are criminal offenses and can result in personal criminal liability. This article will explain the customs audit process and how issues are resolved under the law.

Preliminary Steps

Certain steps must be undertaken before an audit is launched. Initially, a Customs Department official will assign customs personnel to conduct the audit of a specific business or in a particular geographic area. Afterward, the department will ask the court to issue a search warrant.

At this stage, the court will only review the reasons for the request and the supporting documents used by customs officials to ask for the warrant. The officials will then conduct the audit in accordance with the warrant.

The Audit

If the officials conducting the inspection find any suspicious documents or evidence, they have the authority to seize them. The officers will put any suspicious documents and evidence into a box with a special Customs Department seal. The company’s representatives must sign on the seal.

In addition to seizing evidence, the officials have the authority to order the company to deliver documents to the Customs Department by a specified deadline. Further, they can ask the company’s representatives to provide oral or written statements on suspect import transactions and documents. Again, the statements must be submitted by a deadline set by the officials.

The Customs Department will review and evaluate all of the evidence, including witness statements. Based on the evidence, customs officials will determine whether the company committed a violation of the Customs Act. If a violation is confirmed, they will issue an order to criminally prosecute the company.

Violations under the Customs Act

Importantly, company directors, officers and other management-level employees are presumed to be personally liable for any violations of the Customs Act. Punishments range from fines to imprisonment, depending on the nature of the violation.

Managers can successfully defend against the charges by proving that the offense was committed without their knowledge or consent. They can also argue that they acted reasonably in preventing the offense. In addition, the presumption of liability is unconstitutional and should be argued as well in a criminal customs defense.

Not all violations of the Customs Act must be resolved by criminal proceedings in court. Several offenses under the Act can be resolved directly by the director-general of the Customs Department. For these offenses, the director-general has the authority to waive prosecution.

To resolve a violation without court action, the alleged violator must admit guilt and pay a fine, or alternatively, sign a settlement agreement or bond or post security as the director-general deems fit. The waiver also indemnifies the violator against any further prosecution on account of the offense.

If the violator admits guilt and pays a fine to waive prosecution, the alleged violator is prohibited from submitting a civil claim against the Customs Department. This applies even if the alleged violator reserved the right to object later to the department’s order.

If the offense is not resolved through this method, the case is sent to a police inquiry official and a public prosecutor for review. The authorities will then review the case to determine whether to prosecute. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.

Prescription Periods

The prescription period for prosecuting a criminal customs case varies from 1 to 15 years, depending on the charge, as each charge carries different criminal penalties.

For example, the criminal prescription period for a charge of importing any goods with unpaid tax or duty is 15 years from the date that the offender imported the goods, and the civil prescription period for an incorrect tax and duty calculation is 2 years. In general, the tax and duty liability on imported goods is incurred when the importation is completed. The prescription period is also triggered at the same time.

Understanding the audit procedure, how audit results can affect a business, and the customs procedures are centrally important, as violating the Customs Act may have severe business and personal ramifications. With an astute approach, companies can avoid potentially disastrous results.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
Read More