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

July 27, 2015

Recent Changes in Thai Customs Laws and Procedures

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Major updates have recently been made to Thailand’s customs laws and procedures regarding transit of goods through Thailand and transshipment. In addition, brand owners must now record their marks in order to comply with the Royal Thai Customs Department’s new customs recordation procedures.

Transit and Transshipment

Thailand recently passed the Customs Act (No. 21) B.E. 2557 (2014)—an amendment to the Customs Act B.E. 2469 (1926). Effective on March 5, 2015, the amendment aims to rectify the lack of clarity regarding how Customs should handle goods that simply pass through Thailand and goods that are transshipped in Thailand, by adding the definitions of “border crossing” and “transshipment” to the law and detailing Customs procedures of goods in such processes.

This distinction between goods being imported into Thailand versus goods crossing the border or being transshipped is important, because it determines the applicable taxes and requirements, and also what Customs may or may not do with the goods. Before the introduction of these terms, it was unclear as to whether Customs officers had a duty to inspect goods that were merely passing through or being transshipped in Thailand, and as a result, Customs inspections were inconsistent, causing confusion among both Customs and business operators.

Customs now uses the term “border crossing” to refer to goods that have both an origin and a final destination outside of Thailand, but that engage in transit through the country to reach their final destination. The term “transshipment” is used to refer to goods changing a conveyance while in transit in Thailand, whereby the starting point and the end point of transportation are outside of Thailand.

After the amendment, the law explicitly states that goods crossing the border or being transshipped are not subject to tax, and empowers Customs officers to inspect and search such goods without a search warrant, so long as there is a reason to believe that:

  • the goods are connected to terrorism;
  • the goods are in violation of international stability, peace, or safety;
  • the place of origin of the goods has been falsely declared; or
  • the goods are illicit.

If the goods match one of these criteria, they may be confiscated and then destroyed or re-exported immediately.

The term “illicit” is not defined in this law. However, as Thailand’s intellectual property law only prohibits the importation of infringing products and not their transition—and the transition of goods is not considered to be an importation of goods—goods in transit that are shipped by third parties without the authorization of the intellectual property owner are not deemed to be illicit goods, unless there is evidence showing that such goods were imported into Thailand.

Customs Recordation

Customs recordation serves as an important border protection measure in Thailand. In the past, in addition to Customs recordation through the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), Customs allowed brand owners to record trademarks that they wanted Customs to monitor directly with Customs, along with detailed information about the trademarks and the names of authorized importers. Customs later recorded such information on their intranet to enable Customs inspectors to obtain the contact details of brand owners or their representatives if they found goods suspected to be counterfeits. Information about goods and trademark validity, however, was not included.

After a meeting in March 2015 between the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center of the Royal Thai Customs Department and several private trademark representatives, a new Customs software program was announced. The new Customs software program, developed by the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, facilitates the filing of recordations with the DIP. Up-to-date contact details of trademark owners and their representatives, information on trademarks including the validity of such trademarks, and lists of goods, will be stored in a database which is accessible to Customs officers throughout Thailand. If Customs officers find suspected counterfeit goods bearing a trademark that has been recorded through the Customs recordation procedure at the DIP, Customs will contact the brand owner’s appointed representative.

This new procedure and Customs software program will allow Customs to more efficiently inspect products which bear trademarks that have been recorded with Customs, as Customs officers no longer have to inquire at the DIP to obtain information on trademarks. As a result of this change in procedure, brand owners must now submit Customs recordations only through the DIP if they would like Customs to continue monitoring their trademarks and verifying seized products. This will be a more efficient way for Customs to monitor all recorded trademarks without delay.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More