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​ 

February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
February 1, 2021
The latest edition of Practical Law’s Life Sciences Global Guide features contributions from Tilleke & Gibbins attorneys in the firm’s Yangon office. One of the sections they have provided for the Myanmar chapter of this Q&A-style guide to life sciences regulatory frameworks worldwide is “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar.” The section includes discussion of a range of regulatory issues related to the marketing and selling of pharmaceutical products, including the following topics: Regulatory overview: Authorities, scope, and general procedures for pharmaceuticals, biologicals, and medical devices and health care IT Pricing, government funding, and reimbursement: National health care system, price regulation, and reimbursement Clinical trials Manufacturing and distribution Marketing: Authorization for marketing medicinal products, parallel imports and cross-border trade in medicines Restrictions on dealings with health care professionals Selling restrictions Advertising and promotion Data privacy Packaging, labeling, and tracking Product safety, quality, and liability Local establishment, representation, and residency requirements Reform The full “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar” section can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar,” which was published in the Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.
February 1, 2021
Attorneys from Tilleke & Gibbins in Myanmar have contributed to the latest edition of Practical Law’s online Life Sciences Global Guide. The guide is a Q&A-style overview of the regulatory frameworks for the life sciences industry across multiple jurisdictions worldwide, and this year the Myanmar chapter includes two sections, one of which is “Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law in Myanmar.” This section runs through the country’s legal and regulatory environment for patents and trademarks—particularly as they relate to pharmaceutical business in the jurisdiction. The section then turns to IP and competition law issues, with questions and answers focusing on how the country’s competition laws and regulations affect the pharmaceutical sector. Readers are also given information on how to properly comply with Myanmar law on competition, including when it comes to licensing of medicines and pharmaceutical technology. The full Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Myanmar guide can be accessed on the Practical Law website. Practical Law, produced by Thomson Reuters, is the world’s leading legal know-how resource for business lawyers, publishing a huge range of guides covering hundreds of jurisdictions and practice areas. Tilleke & Gibbins also supplied the “Medicinal Product Regulation and Product Liability in Myanmar,” which Practical Law published in its Life Sciences Global Guide  at the same time.