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​ 

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 24, 2025
Online shopping in Thailand is more accessible than ever, with global platforms, local social media shops, and entertainment-driven social commerce enabling instant purchases. However, this convenience comes with rising concerns over digital intellectual property (IP) infringement, including counterfeit goods, pirated content, and unauthorized brand usage. At first glance, online platforms appear to offer quick solutions. Most major e-commerce sites, social media channels, and social commerce platforms provide “notice and takedown” systems, where IP owners can file complaints and request the removal of listings that infringe IP rights, such as trademarks and copyrights. These tools are certainly useful, as seeing a fake product vanish from a platform feels like progress. But the reality is less reassuring. The counterfeit goods themselves remain in warehouses, markets, or shops, ready to be resold. Sellers whose accounts are taken down often return within days under new names or accounts. In other words, a takedown is like cutting weeds without pulling out the roots: they always grow back. While notice and takedown tools are widely available and can be managed internally by most IP owners, their impact is often short-lived. IP owners seeking more effective, lasting protection need to take a more strategic and multilayered approach. The same applies to online piracy. Unauthorized streaming websites that offer free access to movies, TV shows, or sports broadcasts have become widespread in Thailand. To combat this, rightsholders can request website blocking under the Computer Crime Act, through the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society and the courts. Once requests are approved, internet service providers are ordered to block access to infringing sites. Blocking orders can be effective in disrupting large-scale piracy operations, but they also face limitations—pirate sites frequently reappear under new domains. Strategic Protection Whether the infringing material is physical counterfeit goods or intangible streaming content,
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
August 25, 2025
Indonesia’s current regulations on franchises, as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 35/2024 on Franchising and its implementing regulation, Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation No. 71/2019 regarding Implementation of Franchising, highlight fundamental changes in franchise registration. These changes have introduced additional complexities and challenges in the franchise registration procedure, making it more difficult for franchise owners to navigate the process. New procedure Franchise applications are still submitted through the Online Single Submission (OSS) portal of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM). However, the new procedure requires each applicant, including foreign franchisors, to have an OSS account and a business registration number (NIB) issued by BKPM. An application for franchise registration must be submitted under the applicant’s own account—submissions can no longer be made through the account of a consultant. Once a franchise application is submitted, the authority will distribute the submission to the MOT—the authorized ministry for franchise registration. Any notification or decision upon the registration made by the MOT will be available in the OSS system. Applicants should regularly monitor the status of the franchise application because no notifications will be sent to applicants to alert them of any deficiency. Here is the summary of the new procedure for franchisors: Notable Requirements The disclosure document, or prospectus, is the key focus for the MOT in examining a franchise registration for a franchisor. This document is subject to thorough scrutiny by the MOT to ensure that all mandatory information meets the requirements set in the franchise regulations. The current regulations specifically require that the mandatory clause “business system” in the prospectus cover operational standards and procedures, which should include human resource management, administration, operational management, standard operating methods, business location selection, business premises design, employee requirements, and marketing strategies. Other clauses that are equally important to pay attention to are:
Read More