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​ 

December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More
December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More