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

June 17, 2025

New Trade Inspection Implementation Decision in Laos

Subscribe to Updates

On January 9, 2025, the Lao official gazette published the newly amended Decision on Trade Inspection Implementation No. 0019/MOIC, dated January 6, 2025.

This decision aims to establish principles and rules for trade officers to inspect, fine, and take measures against violators of trade laws and their related regulations on business competition, business operations, and intellectual property rights to protect consumers and business operators in Laos.

Changes in Trade Inspection Procedures

Previously, trade inspection officers, operating independently under the central Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) or the provincial-level Department of Industry and Commerce (DOIC), were responsible for administrative raid actions focusing exclusively on intellectual property issues. However, following the enactment of Decision No. 0019/MOIC, trade inspection officers will now be grouped into the Trade Officers Unit, which will also include business competition officers and consumer protection officers. This unit will conduct and participate in raids, considering not only intellectual property laws but also competition and consumer protection laws when imposing penalties on infringers.

Trade Inspection Authority Levels

Trade inspection implementation is overseen by authorities at three levels:

  • Central level: Department of Business Competition and Trade Inspection, MOIC. The MOIC handles trade inspection work covering all provinces in Laos.
  • Provincial level: DOIC offices in provinces and Vientiane handle trade inspections covering two or more districts.
  • District level: Office of the Industry and Commerce offices in districts.

Violations

Individuals, legal entities, and organizations violating the newly amended trade inspection decision, the Decree on Trade Inspection, or other related regulations will be educated about the issue, warned, disciplined (for government servants), fined, subject to compensation for damage incurred, or punished by the relevant laws, depending on the gravity of the violation.

Trade Violations

Violations of trade laws and regulations concerning business operations will result in fines and additional measures. Examples include:

  • Failure to display product prices: Fines ranging from LAK 500,000 (approx. USD 25) to LAK 1,000,000 (approx. USD 50) per item.
  • False advertising: Fines ranging from LAK 500,000 to LAK 5,000,000 (approx. USD 250) per item, with possible seizure or destruction of products.
  • Defamatory advertising: Fines ranging from LAK 500,000 to LAK 1,000,000 if a complaint is filed.
  • Incorrect labeling or failure to label in Lao language: Fines ranging from LAK 500,000 to LAK 5,000,000 per item, with possible seizure or confiscation of products.
  • Counterfeiting labels: Fines ranging from LAK 200,000 (approx. USD 10) to LAK 2,000,000 (approx. USD 100) per instance, with confiscation of products and criminal prosecution.

Intellectual Property Violations

Minor offenses in violation of intellectual property laws will result in fines of 1% of the value of the damage incurred. Intentional violations will result in fines of 5% of the damage incurred per violation.

False Business Operations

Violations of the Enterprise Law No. 33/NA, dated December 29, 2022, will result in educational measures, warnings, disciplinary actions, fines, civil damages, or criminal penalties. Conducting business without a permit will result in similar measures.

Unauthorized Trading

Illegal trading of products will be punished or fined based on the value of the goods and compliance with ensuing legal obligations. Examples include:

  • Import-export goods processed at incorrect checkpoints: Remedial education and warnings for goods below LAK 5 million, fines of 5% for goods valued between LAK 5 million and LAK 10 million, and fines of 10% for goods above LAK 10 million.
  • Violations of the import and export regulations: Fines of 30% for the first offense, 50% for the second offense, and 70% for illegal import or export of goods.

Compliance

Businesses need to ensure their compliance with the newly amended trade inspection decision and all related laws and regulations, as violating a trade regulation, operating a business without an Enterprise Registration Certificate, or conducting a business for illicit purposes involving illegal goods may result in civil or criminal proceedings, depending on the violation and applicable regulations—in addition to the fines and measures outlined above.

Related Professionals

Practices

Antitrust and Competition

Customs and International Trade

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 17, 2025
The Department of Trade under Myanmar’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) issued a schedule of revised service fees for trade-related services, effective October 15, 2025. The revised fees are contained in Newsletter of Export/Import 6/2025, which supersedes the previous rates set out in 2018 and 2020. Service Fees The revised fees include the following: Annual fee for TradeNet 2.0, the MOC online platform for trade submissions: MMK 50,000 (approx. USD 23.81) Online service application fee: MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) Import or export license renewal (including for all imported goods exempt from the license fees): MMK 50,000 (approx. USD 23.81) for initial renewal (two months) MMK 30,000 (approx. USD 14.29) for second renewal (one month) Amendment of license information: MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) per amendment Return of export/import license: MMK 30,000 (approx. USD 14.29) Late fees for renewal/amendment of import or export license: MMK 5,000 (approx. USD 2.38) if within one month of expiry MMK 10,000 (approx. USD 4.76) if later than one month after expiry Submission Schedule License renewal applications submitted more than 14 days after the license expiration date will not be processed. Applications for license amendment must be submitted in advance of the relevant goods’ arrival at Myanmar ports or airports. For more information on this announcement, or on any aspect of import and export matters in Myanmar, please contact Tilleke & Gibbins at [email protected].
Read More
October 3, 2025
On September 26, 2025, the Contract Committee under Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board issued a regulation that aims to standardize contracts and enhance consumer protection within the beauty and wellness industry. The Notification on Prescribing the Beauty Service Business as a Contract-Controlled Business B.E. 2568 (2025), which takes effect on January 24, 2026, requires business operators to use a prescribed standard contract in Thai and adhere to strict mandatory provisions and prohibitions. These regulations apply to operators across all in-person and online service channels, including via digital platforms. “Beauty services business” is defined as the provision of services under an agreement allowing consumers to receive a series of treatments, either over a set number of sessions or within a set period. This includes massage, spa, other methods for cleanliness, beauty, or care of facial or body skin, and weight control and body shaping—including services offered electronically. The law excludes surgery, liposuction, and medical treatments performed by licensed practitioners. The notification establishes the following key requirements: Mandatory contract and formatting. All contracts with consumers must use the standard contract form, in Thai, with clear, readable text (minimum font size of 2 millimeters, no more than 11 characters per inch), and include all essential terms from the annexed form. Contract execution. Contracts must be made in duplicate, with one copy given to the consumer at signing. For agreements concluded through electronic channels, the process must comply with the Electronic Transactions Act and use the same required terms. Digital platforms. Business operators who provide services facilitated through a digital platform as an intermediary are ultimately responsible for ensuring the consumer receives a compliant contract. Prohibited clauses. The law prohibits clauses that limit or exclude liability for damages to life, body, health, mind, or property resulting from breach of contract or a wrongful act;
Read More
October 3, 2025
In Thailand, the rise in online intellectual property infringement has prompted authorities to strengthen enforcement efforts, including the use of website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (CCA). This provision authorizes the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES), with court approval, to block or remove computer data that constitutes a criminal offence under IP law. Since its implementation, the procedure has undergone several developments, which is an encouraging sign of progress. Website-blocking procedure In practice, website-blocking orders under Section 20(3) of the CCA are primarily used for copyright and trademark infringement. While such orders are legally applicable to patent infringement, their use remains challenging due to the difficulty of proving infringement through administrative procedures. The website-blocking procedure begins when an IP owner identifies online infringing content. For copyright infringement, which is considered a compoundable offence, the IP owner is required to first file a police report with the specialized police unit known as the Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) prior to filing the website-blocking application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP). For trademark infringement cases, the application can be filed directly with the DIP without a prior police report. The DIP reviews the evidence and, if infringement is confirmed, forwards it to the MDES for further consideration. If the case is deemed valid, the MDES requests a court order to block the infringing website. Once granted, the MDES notifies the internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to the specified website. Website blocking procedure in Thailand Recent advancements in website-blocking actions Seamless collaboration through digital integration. Thailand has made significant progress in digitizing its website-blocking procedures to improve efficiency and transparency. At present, all website-blocking applications and supporting evidence must be submitted in electronic format. These systems have significantly reduced processing
Read More
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts
Read More