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

March 21, 2014

The DSI’s Right to Investigate Customs Violations

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Business operators in Thailand should be familiar with the many administrative agencies that have regulatory and investigative authority. For example, under the Customs Act B.E. 2469, the Customs Department has the right to investigate any customs transaction that might not comply with the customs law.

By law, a customs officer may invite a business operator for one or more interviews, and may visit the operator’s office to audit and possibly attach documents and goods for further investigation, if the officer believes those documents need to be reviewed by the customs team at their office.

The Customs Department has the authority to levy very substantial taxes, duties, and fines if it concludes that the business operation is non-compliant.

Due to recent developments in Thai administrative law, in addition to the Customs Department and other agencies directly responsible for regulating business operators, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) also has the mandate to investigate what it deems to be customs infractions or other criminal activity related to business. This means that business operators who have never been investigated by the Customs Department might still be investigated for customs violations by the DSI.

The DSI was established under the Special Case Investigation Act of 2004 and accompanying announcements (the SCI Act). The DSI is overseen and directed by the Board of Special Cases, and it is charged with investigating and examining “special cases,” which include the following:

  • Complex criminal cases that require special inquiry, investigation, and collection of evidence;
  • Criminal cases that might have a serious effect on public order and morals, national security, international relations, or the country’s economy or finance;
  • Criminal cases that involve serious transnational crime or that were committed by an organized criminal group;
  • Criminal cases involving an influential person as a principal, instigator, or supporter;
  • Certain criminal cases against administrative officials or senior police officers; or
  • Any criminal case that the Board of Special Cases determines by majority vote to investigate.

If a matter is judged to fall within the definition of the above “special cases,” the DSI will normally send the business operator a written request to attend an interview at the DSI and/or provide the DSI with a list of documents for review.

The DSI may invite the business operator to be interviewed as an accused person or as a potential witness, depending on the amount of evidence already assembled. It is possible for a business operator or members of its management to be called as witnesses, and later to be charged with the suspected crime.

Technically, a person summoned as a witness to give information to the DSI is not entitled to have a lawyer present at the interview (although discretionary exceptions are sometimes granted) and, as a general rule, anything said by a witness and recorded at the interview may be used against him or others. It is always advisable to consult legal counsel as soon as the company is first contacted by the DSI.

When there are reasonable grounds, the DSI official also has the authority to access and search any dwelling place or premises; search any person or vehicle; issue a summons or subpoena to a financial institution, government agency, or state enterprise to provide documents; and seize and attach property that is authorized under the SCI Act.

Under section 41 of the SCI Act, any person who does not facilitate lawful requests for information or evidence by the DSI is subject to imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of up to THB 20,000.

The above list of “special cases” might not seem very relevant to many business operators, but the Board of Special Cases recently refocused DSI resources on other business-related investigations when it issued its Announcements of the Board of Special Cases No. 4 and No. 5 in 2011 and 2012. Under those announcements, “special cases” eligible for DSI investigation now include possible infractions involving (among others) the following list of laws, entities, and agencies:

  • Consumer protection;
  • Trade competition;
  • Government agency bidding;
  • Customs, liquor, and tobacco;
  • Exchange controls, currency, Bank of Thailand and financial institutions;
  • Export tax reimbursement;
  • Trademarks and patents;
  • Industrial product standards;
  • Public companies and foreign businesses;
  • Food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and hazardous substances; and
  • Minerals.

One would be hard-pressed to identify a business operator that does not fall under the purview of the recent announcements from the Board of Special Cases. Thus, almost every business could potentially be subject to a DSI investigation, even when other directly responsible agencies (such as the Customs Department or the Department of Mineral Resources) have passed on the investigation.

All business operators should keep systems in place to help them respond to the DSI and other investigations. They should also consult legal counsel as soon as they become aware of an investigation in order to help them navigate the procedural and substantive requirements, while minimizing exposure.

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