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​ 

July 13, 2026
When Decree No. 186/2026/ND-CP (Decree 186) takes effect on July 15, 2026, it will introduce the most significant reform of Vietnam’s administrative IP enforcement framework since Decree 99/2013/ND-CP was issued in 2013. These changes are expected to make administrative enforcement faster, more accessible, and better suited to the realities of modern IP disputes. Below are the principal reforms and their practical implications for rights holders and enforcement practitioners. The End of Notarization and Consular Legalization Among the most welcome procedural changes is the abolition of the notarization and consular legalization requirement for powers of attorney (POA) submitted in administrative enforcement proceedings. Under the previous regime, foreign rights holders were generally required to execute a POA, then have it notarized and consular legalized (if seeking customs recordal). In practice, this process frequently delayed enforcement by four to eight weeks, often long enough for infringing goods to disappear before authorities could intervene. Decree 186 removes this bottleneck, now requiring only an original or certified copy of the POA. If the document is in a foreign language, a Vietnamese translation is sufficient, provided it is certified by a competent authority or confirmed by the authorized Vietnamese IP representative. Consular legalization and notarization are no longer required. For rights holders, the practical impact is substantial. Administrative enforcement files that previously took weeks to prepare can now be completed in a matter of days, allowing much faster responses in time-sensitive matters such as warehouse raids, border interventions, and trade-fair enforcement. The decree also introduces a useful administrative simplification. Where an original POA has already been submitted to the same enforcement authority and remains valid, applicants may rely on a copy of that earlier submission by identifying the previous case file. This eliminates unnecessary duplication for rights holders pursuing multiple enforcement actions before the same
Read More
July 9, 2026
Recycling, upcycling, and refill-packaging models are now widely promoted as ways to reduce waste, lower carbon emissions, and respond to consumer demand for sustainable products. However, complications arise when these environmentally driven trends intersect with intellectual property law—particularly where reused or altered packaging continues to display third parties’ registered trademarks. Adding to this complexity, Thailand’s draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act aims to introduce new environmental compliance obligations that businesses must navigate alongside existing trademark concerns. Recycling and upcycling packaging may infringe trademark rights, especially in cases not protected by the first-sale doctrine—the principle that a trademark owner’s rights over a particular mark-bearing product end once the owner first sells it. Furthermore, even refill packaging carries legal risk due to specific statutory prohibitions under Thai law. Compounding these challenges, the draft Sustainable Packaging Management Act will impose extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations on manufacturers and brand owners, requiring them to manage packaging throughout its lifecycle. These overlapping legal frameworks could deter manufacturers from pursuing ESG-aligned business models unless businesses understand how to navigate both trademark and environmental requirements. Under Thai law, this issue remains uncertain because the Trademark Act does not expressly codify the first sale doctrine, also known as the exhaustion of trademark rights. Generally, this doctrine provides that once a trademark owner has lawfully sold goods bearing its trademark, the owner’s right to control further resale of those particular goods is exhausted. The rationale is that the owner has already received commercial benefit from the first authorized sale; therefore, the purchaser should be free to resell or otherwise dispose of the goods. Although the doctrine is not expressly codified in the Trademark Act, Thai courts have recognized it in relation to genuine goods and parallel imports, as seen in a Supreme Court Judgment No. 2817/2543 in which the
Read More
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
Read More
June 30, 2026
Customs recordation is an enforcement mechanism in Myanmar that enables intellectual property (IP) rights holders to seek prevention of the cross-border movement of infringing goods. The enactment of Myanmar’s IP laws in 2019 has enabled customs recordation for registered marks and copyrights under the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019. By contrast, the Patent Law 2019 and the Industrial Design Law 2019 do not provide a practical framework for customs recordation, and accordingly such rights are not subject to the customs recordation regime. Under the Trademark Law 2019, rights holders may apply for customs recordation and may also ask the Customs Department to suspend the release of goods suspected of bearing counterfeit marks. Likewise, the Copyright Law 2019 allows for customs intervention in relation to pirated works. These provisions reflect Myanmar’s gradual alignment with international standards on border measures, although the implementation framework remains at a relatively early stage of development. Customs Recordation Pursuant to the Trademark Law 2019 and the Copyright Law 2019, the relevant authorities have issued customs rules concerning the protection of registered marks and copyrights. In practice, the process generally begins with the submission of an application to the Customs Department together with supporting documentation. This typically includes proof of registration in Myanmar; details of the rights holder, applicant, and any authorized representative; and a comprehensive description of the genuine goods. Product identification materials—such as photographs, packaging samples, and distinguishing features—are particularly important in helping customs officers identify suspected infringing goods. A recordation remains valid for two years from the date of approval. It may be renewed for additional two-year terms, provided that the renewal application is filed within the thirty days prior to expiry for marks and up to thirty days in advance of the expiry date for copyrights, in accordance with
Read More