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 5, 2012

Import Challenges for Cosmetic Products

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

By harmonizing the technical regulations governing the cosmetics industry in the ASEAN region over the past few years, the ASEAN Cosmetics Association has been the driving force toward better quality and standards. This harmonization has also helped remove trade barriers under the ASEAN Free Trade Area.

The ASEAN Harmonized Cosmetic Regulatory Scheme (AHCRS) has set out the requirements for cosmetic products for all signatories, including Thailand, since January 1, 2008. Since then, a product manufactured or marketed in any signatory country can enter any other signatory country if it complies with the AHCRS requirements.

By harmonizing their regulations, the ten ASEAN countries, and particularly Thailand, have become an extremely attractive market in which cosmetics distributors can expand their businesses. There are, however, some technical regulations that have not been harmonized as they are subject to national controls, such as the restrictions on importation into Thailand.

Importing for Personal Use

The Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set forth clear guidelines to differentiate between cosmetic product imports intended for personal use and for sale. If a person brings into Thailand more than six items of the same cosmetic product from another country, the Import and Export Inspector from the Thai FDA at the port will conclude that the person intends to import the products for local sale.

Registration Requirements

When importing products for sale, each ASEAN country requires individual registration with the regulatory authorities where the product will be marketed. In Thailand, the FDA is flexible in allowing either a company or an individual to register as a distributor for a cosmetics business. And there is no limitation on the number of importers of one product, so the same product, with the same name, can be imported by several companies.

The Thai FDA requires that the company or person who intends to place any cosmetic on the market must register as an importer with the FDA, as well as register the product itself after the FDA approves the company’s or individual’s registration.

Using the established registration process, many individuals have tried to register themselves as authorized marketers or importers of a broad range of cosmetic products—even well-known products that are already registered with the FDA. These individuals have all eventually failed, as they are unable to produce the specific documentation the FDA requires for product registration. This includes, for example, the full ingredient listing and percentages of all ingredients contained in the product formula. This is important because this kind of information is extremely confidential and belongs only to the product owner and its authorized marketer.

A letter of authorization from the product owner or manufacturer is also required, especially when a well-known product brand is already registered with the FDA. It appears that some of these individuals lack the knowledge and experience to be importers or authorized marketers in accordance with FDA practice.

The FDA has also become more rigorous in post-marketing steps. FDA officials now regularly conduct random inspections of importers. Thai cosmetic companies are therefore required to prepare the four parts of the product information files, which consist of more detailed product information, in case they are randomly inspected.

Parallel Import

Importing cosmetics products into Thailand also creates some uncertainties with regard to parallel imports. For example, a manufacturer might give exclusive authorization to different distributors to sell its products in Malaysia and Thailand. The Malaysian distributor might then decide that it wishes to export the product to Thailand. In doing so, the Malaysian distributor will be required to carry out the registration process, and the Thai FDA will still be in a position to authorize the registration and import of such cosmetics on the basis that all documents have been provided.

If this happens, the Thai distributor, who had independently reached an agreement with the foreign manufacturer to be the only distributor in Thailand, will no longer be the exclusive distributor. The Thai importer would also not be able to claim trademark infringement against the Malaysian distributor. This is because Thailand recognizes the principle of exhaustion of rights. This principle holds that once a product has legally entered the market somewhere (in this case, in Malaysia), then resale of the product anywhere in the world no longer constitutes trademark infringement.

Faced with this scenario, the only available option is for the foreign manufacturer to claim breach of the contract it signed with the parallel importer (the Malaysian distributor), provided a clause exists that indicates that such distributor will not sell outside its designated territory.

In summary, if an individual wishes to import cosmetics into Thailand, he or she should first check the requirements, and then ensure that if they have a distribution agreement with the foreign manufacturer, sufficient provisions are included to allow them to enforce their rights.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has reinstated a key provision limiting pharmaceutical patent protection, signaling a renewed commitment to balancing patent rights with public access to medicines. In its ruling to Case No. 255/PUU-XXIII/2025, the court partially granted a petition for judicial review of Law No. 65 of 2024, which had amended the country’s Patent Law, and ordered the restoration of a provision that had excluded certain pharmaceutical inventions from patentability. The decision took effect immediately upon its pronouncement at the court’s plenary session on August 28, 2026. Background The petition challenged the removal of article 4(f) from Law No. 13 of 2016 concerning Patents (Patent Law), as amended by Law No. 65 of 2024. Article 4(f) had excluded from patentability certain inventions relating to new uses of known substances. The petitioners argued that removing this provision would open the door to patent protection for second medical use inventions and facilitate patent evergreening—practices that can extend exclusivity periods, delay generic market entry, and reduce public access to affordable medicines. The petitioners included several patient advocacy and public-interest organizations: the Indonesian Dialysis Patients Community Association, the Indonesian Association of Drug Abuse Victims (PKNI), the Indonesian Pulmonary Hypertension Foundation (YHPI), the Rekat Peduli Indonesia Foundation, and the Indonesian Positive Women’s Association (IPPI), along with the Indonesia for Global Justice Association and four individual petitioners. The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “interested party” in article 70(1) of the Patent Law, arguing that it should be construed expressly to clarify who has standing to appeal a decision to grant a patent before the Board of Patent Appeal, and to allow a broader range of parties—such as patent holders, licensees, consumer organizations, prosecutors, aggrieved third parties, and others who may suffer direct or indirect harm from the grant of a patent—to
September 4, 2026
Blind boxes and collectibles have become increasingly popular, driven by the excitement of not knowing which character or design will be revealed until the package is opened. While most visible in the art toy market, the same concept is also used in the food industry. Confectionery, snacks, and other food products are sometimes sold with toys, character figures, cards, or other collectibles. A package might, for example, contain one of ten possible characters, with consumers knowing that an item is included but not which one they will receive. Some collections may also feature rare or “secret” items. For food businesses, however, adding a randomized toy or collectible involves more than a marketing decision. The food, the nonfood item, and the randomized mechanism may each raise different regulatory considerations in Thailand. Thai FDA Requirements for Nonfood Objects Packaged with Food The main food regulatory consideration is Ministry of Public Health Notification No. 310 B.E. 2551 (2008), which regulates food packaged together with things or objects that are not food. Under Notification No. 310, certain nonfood objects may be packaged together with food where they fall within specified exceptions, including objects that serve the following purposes: Maintaining the quality or standard of the food, such as a desiccant or oxygen absorber; Serving as a seasoning or as part of food preparation, such as chili powder sachets or seasoning sachets contained in instant noodle packages; or Functioning as an eating or food-preparation utensil, such as a spoon or fork included with instant noodles. Other nonfood objects that do not fall within these categories generally should not be placed inside the food container together with the food. Where a toy, collectible, or other nonfood object is intended to be sold together with a food product, businesses should therefore carefully consider the nature of