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​ 

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