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​ 

February 25, 2026
In December 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam enacted a new Law on Construction, replacing the 2014 Law on Construction as amended in 2020. The 2025 Law on Construction will, in principle, take effect on July 1, 2026, subject to certain exceptions. Among its notable reforms, one development has attracted particular attention from both legal practitioners and market participants: the introduction of a statutory framework governing predetermined damages, commonly referred to as “liquidated damages.” This marks the first time liquidated damages have been expressly recognized at the level of primary legislation in Vietnam. While liquidated damages clauses have long been a common feature of construction contracts in practice, their legal enforceability has historically been subject to uncertainty. Although the new provision appears to represent a positive step toward greater legal clarity, it remains an open question whether it is sufficient, on its own, to provide a solid legal basis for the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses in construction disputes in Vietnam. What’s New? Article 86.2 of the 2025 Law on Construction provides (emphasis added): “Compensation for damages shall be determined on the basis of actual damages [or] predetermined damages corresponding to obligations under the construction contracts that are breached [and] the extent of such breaches.” This provision is significant in that it expressly recognizes predetermined damages, or liquidated damages, as a lawful basis for determining compensation for damage. However, the new law does not define “predetermined damages.” The absence of a statutory definition creates potential ambiguity as to the scope and nature of this concept and may give rise to disputes over how—and whether—a particular contractual clause qualifies as predetermined damages for the purposes of Article 86.2. Further, Article 86.2 qualifies the application of predetermined damages by requiring that such damages correspond to the obligations not fulfilled and the
Read More
February 20, 2026
Thailand’s Supreme Administrative Court has issued a decisive ruling annulling the Ministry of Labor’s notification that had granted an exemption for foreign pilots to fly domestic routes under wet‑lease arrangements. A wet lease is a leasing arrangement in which the aircraft is provided together with its foreign flight crew, including pilots, and related operational support, rather than the airline supplying its own pilots. The judgment, delivered on November 17, 2025, and published in the Government Gazette on January 30, 2026, follows a legal challenge brought by the Thai Pilots Association, which argued that the exemption unlawfully enabled foreign workers to assume a role traditionally reserved for Thai nationals. The notification in question, dated December 13, 2024, authorized foreign pilots who came as part of wet‑leased aircraft to fly domestic routes. The Thai Pilots Association disputed the legality of this rationale, asserting that the exemption was triggered by a private airline’s request rather than by any statutory necessity. The Ministry of Labor justified this measure by relying on aircraft‑specific approvals issued by the Ministry of Transport and by enabling the Department of Employment to issue corresponding work permits. Arguments Presented in the Case The Thai Pilots Association argued that the exemption undermined the interests of domestic pilots and conflicted with the policy intent of Thailand’s foreign‑worker regulatory framework. The lawsuit emphasized that the notification arose directly from a private airline company’s request to operate two A320 aircraft under a wet lease and that the measure had the practical effect of displacing Thai pilots who remained unemployed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Labor defended the exemption as a temporary and necessary response to industry shortages and part of national efforts to support tourism and restore aviation capacity. Legal Framework Thai law establishes a general prohibition against foreign nationals piloting domestic aircraft. Section
Read More
February 9, 2026
When unauthorized credit card transactions occur, who bears responsibility—the cardholder or the issuing bank? In Thailand, a landmark 2025 ruling by the country’s Supreme Court has clarified this question, establishing a stricter standard for banks in fraud disputes and significantly strengthening consumer protections. The case centered on disputed charges where a customer claimed their credit card had been used without authorization. The bank sued to recover the amount, and both the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the bank. However, the Supreme Court overruled their judgments and decided that the customer did not need to pay for the unauthorized transactions, placing liability squarely on the bank. This ruling was based on three key findings, which are outlined below. Finding 1: Insufficient Expert Testimony In this case, the bank bore the burden of proving matters related to the credit card system’s manufacture, design, security, and operation, as required under the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008). To meet this requirement, the bank presented testimony from two employees in its credit card department regarding ’security measures and issuance procedures. However, the Supreme Court found these witnesses unqualified as experts, as they did not present technical or academic evidence and did not possess specialized expertise in credit card technology. As a result, their testimony failed to establish that the bank’s credit card technology was sufficiently secure against fraudulent misuse. Finding 2: Contradictory Terms and Conditions The bank’s own credit card terms and conditions included a provision acknowledging that despite the card’s EMV security standards, cardholders must still exercise caution to prevent unauthorized access. The Supreme Court interpreted this clause as an explicit admission that credit card systems remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud, even with high-level security measures in place. This acknowledgment undermined the
Read More
February 3, 2026
Thailand’s alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade. Legislative reforms such as the Dispute Mediation Act and expanded court‑annexed mediation have strengthened non‑litigious options, while institutional choices have broadened. Parties can now choose between the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), and a growing number of sector‑specific dispute forums. For businesses, these choices matter. Each forum has different rules, administration, costs, speed, and enforcement mechanisms. These factors can directly impact commercial leverage, recovery outcomes, and business continuity. Choosing the right forum and drafting an effective dispute resolution clause can materially influence how a dispute is resolved. This article outlines the practical differences between Thailand’s leading alternative dispute resolution forums, explains when each is likely to deliver the most value, and offers drafting and strategy tips to embed those advantages into your dispute resolution clauses. Why ADR Is Gaining Traction in Thailand Thai policy increasingly supports the resolution of civil and commercial disputes through ADR. Recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Code now provide for court-supervised pre-action and in-case mediation. This type of mediation has its 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, which closely follows the UNCITRAL Model Law and applies to both domestic and international cases, so cross‑border users see familiar rules. As Thailand is a signatory to the New York Convention, Thai courts generally recognize and enforce foreign awards subject only
Read More