Thai Customs Department Notification 106/2565 (TCIRs Recordation Regime) and the 2026 USTR Special 301 Spillover: How Hong Kong-Domiciled Brand Owners Should Sequence Border-Enforcement Filings After the FY2026 H1 Seizure Profile

Matter Snapshot

A Hong Kong-domiciled SPV holds the global trademark portfolio for a luxury, electronics, pharmaceutical or FMCG brand and licenses a Thai distributor (or operates through a Thai subsidiary) for the Thailand market. The brand owner has either (i) never recorded its Thai trademarks and copyrights in TCIRs, (ii) has recordations that have lapsed during a quiet enforcement period, or (iii) holds active recordations but has not refreshed its standing instructions to Thai counsel since the FY2026 H1 surge in Thai Customs seizures and the April 2026 USTR Special 301 Report.

In April 2026 the Customs Department, supported by the EABC briefing, reported a sharp increase in border seizures: 332 cases, 1.3 million items, THB 2.3 billion in estimated damages in just the first half of the fiscal year. In parallel, the USTR consolidated "China (including Hong Kong)" as a single statistical category for counterfeit-origin reporting, which is a U.S. CBP framing but which has operational read-across for how Thai Customs profiles HK-manifested consignments. [verify]

The brand owner needs a single doctrinal map covering: (i) what Notification 106/2565 actually requires from the rights holder in the 24-hour and 3-day windows; (ii) how that interacts with Trademark Act sections 108 to 110 and Copyright Act sections 31 and 70 once the matter is referred to the Economic Crime Division (ECD) or the Department of Special Investigation (DSI); (iii) the limits of TCIRs against grey-market parallel imports under the WAHL international-exhaustion doctrine; and (iv) what the USTR PRC framing does and does not authorise the Thai border authorities to do.

Issue

The doctrinal questions for a Hong Kong-domiciled brand owner sequencing border-enforcement filings in Thailand in the wake of the FY2026 H1 seizure profile and the 2026 USTR Special 301 Report are:

1. What is the operative source-of-law chain for Thai customs detention of trademark-counterfeit and copyright-pirated goods, and how does Customs Department Notification No. 106/2565 fit into the Customs Act B.E. 2560 framework and the Ministry of Commerce notification on prohibited goods?
2. What does TCIRs recordation under Notification 106/2565 actually buy the rights holder in operational terms, and what is the consequence of failing to record (or letting a recordation lapse)?
3. What are the procedural windows after a border seizure (24-hour summons, 3-day petition for prosecution), and what documentary chain does the rights holder need pre-staged in Hong Kong to meet them?
4. Where does Notification 106/2565 fail to reach (genuine grey-market parallel imports, sham bond-for-release attempts), and where is the rights holder's only realistic recourse the courts (CIPIT under Trademark Act section 116 or the criminal track under sections 108 to 110)?
5. How should the rights holder read the 2026 USTR Special 301 Report's "China (including Hong Kong)" framing and its Watch List entry for Thailand, and what does it operationally mean for HK-manifested consignments transiting Thai ports of entry?

Rule

A. Statutory anchor: Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017) plus the Ministry of Commerce prohibited-goods notification

The Customs Act B.E. 2560 (2017) is the backbone statute. Section 244 addresses concealment and smuggling generally; section 246 addresses the importation, exportation or bringing in transit of prohibited goods, with penalties commonly described as imprisonment not exceeding five years and/or a fine not exceeding THB 500,000, with forfeiture of the goods [verify]; and section 251 vests the Director-General with disposition powers and the authority to issue Customs Department Notifications (ประกาศกรมศุลกากร) prescribing procedural rules.

The Ministry of Commerce Notification on the Determination of Counterfeit Goods and Pirated Goods as Goods Prohibited from Export, Import and Bringing in Transit B.E. 2565 (2022), anchored on WIPO Lex listing 21505, is the substantive trigger that brings trademark-counterfeit and copyright-pirated goods within section 246 of the Customs Act. Per WIPO Lex, the operative content is that goods that are infringing against a trademark registered in Thailand and pirated goods that infringe a copyright are prohibited from exportation from, importation into, and transition through Thailand.

B. Notification 106/2565: the operational rules

Customs Department Notification No. 106/2565 was issued under the authority of the Customs Act B.E. 2560 and is in force as of 29 July 2022. The article cannot independently confirm the Royal Gazette publication date for the Notification itself; the 29 July 2022 effective date is consistently reported across descriptive primary sources (the European Commission's EU IP Helpdesk note, and the EABC press briefing record of 27 April 2026), but the verbatim Thai text of 106/2565 could not be retrieved from customs.go.th for this article. The procedural language quoted below is therefore sourced to those descriptive primary materials, with the WIPO Lex anchor at listing 21505 attached as the institutional record for the Ministry of Commerce notification that 106/2565 implements (a separate instrument). [verify]

The operative recordation clause, per descriptive primary sources, reads (Clause 2): "either the owner of the trademark or copyright or his agent or representative may file the application for registration with Customs." Recordation validity is three years from acceptance (or until expiry of the underlying Thai trademark or copyright registration), renewable, with no official fee per current TCIRs portal documentation.

The operative seizure-and-notice clauses, per descriptive primary sources, are:

• "If Customs Officers accept a case-by-case inspection request, they will seize the goods and summons a trademark/copyright owner for inspection within 24 hours from receipt of the notification; this period is non-extendible."
• "The customs officer will direct the rights owner (or its representative) to file a confirmation letter and a petition for prosecution from the authorities within three days of the inspection, otherwise the goods will be released."
• Customs Officers may discharge the goods if a trademark/copyright owner fails to attend the inspection.

These windows are operational, not advisory: failure to attend within 24 hours, or failure to file the confirmation letter and petition for prosecution within three days of inspection, releases the goods. There is no statutory counter-bond pathway for the importer to secure release of allegedly-infringing goods identified through this procedure; the importer's only formal remedy is to challenge the seizure or the underlying infringement determination in CIPIT. [verify]

C. TCIRs portal: the recordation gateway

The Thai Customs IPR Recordation System (TCIRs) at thaiipr.customs.go.th/TCIR/login is the gateway through which a rights holder applies for recordation. The mechanics involve online submission of trademark and copyright details, goods specifications, sample images and distinguishing-marks PDFs, followed by an in-person Customs appointment to present originals. Per the EU IP Helpdesk note (August 2024), approximately 1,100 recordal applications had been approved as of mid-2024, of which roughly 95% relate to trademarks and 5% to copyright. [verify]

Renewal must be filed at least 30 days before expiry. The practical consequence of allowing a recordation to lapse is significant: while Customs retains ex officio authority under Customs Act section 246 (because the Ministry of Commerce notification designates infringing goods as prohibited per se), without an active TCIRs file Customs has no inspection-data baseline (sample images, distinguishing marks, contact routing) and rarely intercepts on its own initiative.

D. Substantive trademark and copyright law

The Trademark Act B.E. 2534 (1991), as amended through 2016 (WIPO Lex listing 17164; DIP English working translation), provides:

• Section 108 (counterfeiting): "Any person who counterfeits a trademark, service mark, certification mark or collective mark registered in Thailand by another person shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding four years or a fine of not exceeding four hundred thousand baht or both."
• Section 109 (imitation): imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding THB 200,000, or both, where the imitation is intended to mislead the public into believing it is the trademark, service mark, certification mark or collective mark of the registered owner.
• Section 110 (importation, distribution, possession for distribution): the penalties of section 108 or 109 (as applicable) extend to any person who imports, distributes, offers for distribution or has in possession for distribution goods bearing a counterfeit or imitation mark, or who provides a service under such a mark.
• Section 116 (provisional injunction): where there is clear evidence that a person is committing or about to commit an act under section 108, 109 or 110, the trademark owner may apply to the court to stop or refrain from such act.

The Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), as amended through B.E. 2565 (2022) (WIPO Lex listing 19877; DIP English version), provides:

• Section 27 (primary infringement): unauthorised reproduction or adaptation, or communication to the public, of a copyright work is infringement; section 28 extends this to audiovisual, cinematographic and sound-recording works.
• Section 31 (secondary infringement): a person who knows or should have known that a work is made by infringing the copyright of another, and commits any of selling, possessing for sale, offering for sale, letting for hire, communicating to the public, distribution in a manner causing damage, or self-importation or importation by order into the Kingdom, for profit, is deemed to infringe the copyright.
• Section 70 (penalties for section 31 violations): a fine of THB 10,000 to THB 100,000; if committed with commercial purpose, imprisonment from three months to two years or a fine from THB 50,000 to THB 400,000, or both.
• Section 75 (court-ordered destruction): things made or imported into the Kingdom that constitute infringement and still belong to the offender shall fall to the ownership of the copyright owner, with the court empowered to order destruction or rendering unusable.

E. International exhaustion: the WAHL doctrine

Thailand follows international exhaustion of trademark rights, as established by the Supreme Court (Dika) Judgment No. 2817/2543 (the WAHL case). The verbatim Thai text of the judgment was not extracted for this article; the case name and ratio are reliably attested in academic and secondary sources, and are attributed to those sources rather than directly quoted. [verify]

The doctrinal effect is that once the trademark owner (or someone with the trademark owner's consent) has sold genuine goods anywhere in the world, the trademark owner cannot use Trademark Act sections 108 to 110 to block the importation of those genuine goods into Thailand by a parallel-import reseller. Notification 106/2565 reaches only infringing goods (counterfeits or copyright-infringing copies); it does not reach genuine-but-grey goods.

F. The 2026 USTR Special 301 Report: framing, not formal Thai policy

The 2026 USTR Special 301 Report, released in April 2026 (cover) with press release dated 30 April 2026, retains Thailand on the Watch List and the People's Republic of China on the Priority Watch List, with Vietnam designated as Priority Foreign Country (the first PFC designation in 13 years).

For Thailand (USTR PDF pp. 92 to 93), the verbatim text recognises continued good working relationships between rights holders and Thai police and Thai Customs, notes increased efficiency in Thai Customs seizures and the successful shutdown of major IPTV piracy services, and identifies the DIP and Thai police action plan against the MBK Center (which is listed in the 2025 Notorious Markets List). The USTR also flags continuing concerns that counterfeit and pirated goods remain readily available, particularly online, and that enforcement authorities focus on small operator offenses rather than high-level distributors and manufacturing operations.

For China (USTR PDF pp. 50 to 60), the report repeats long-standing concerns on technology transfer, trade secrets, counterfeiting, online piracy, copyright law, patent and related policies, bad-faith trademarks and geographical indications, and consolidates "China (including Hong Kong)" as a single statistical category: in Fiscal Year 2025, China (including Hong Kong) accounted for over 87% of the value (measured by manufacturers' suggested retail price) of counterfeit and pirated goods seized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (footnote 13, p. 18). The report also flags the State Council of China's March 2025 Provisions on the Handling of Foreign-Related Intellectual Property Disputes as a measure that seemingly legitimises political intervention in IP disputes.

The USTR's "China (including Hong Kong)" framing is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistical convention. It is not a formal Thai policy and does not authorise Thai Customs to discriminate by manifest origin. [verify] Its operational read-across is that HK-manifested consignments are likely to attract heightened profiling intensity at the Thai border, particularly in the FY2026 H1 enforcement environment.

Application

Application 1: Hong Kong-domiciled luxury brand owner, Thai distributor as named consignee

Where the HK SPV holds the trademark portfolio and a Thai distributor is the named consignee on the bill of lading, Customs notifies the agent of record under the TCIRs file (which should be the rights holder's Thai agent, not the distributor). The 24-hour clock runs from receipt of the notification by the agent of record; the rights holder's Thai agent attends the inspection within 24 hours and files the confirmation letter and petition for prosecution within three days of inspection.

Critically, the Thai distributor remains exposed in parallel under Trademark Act section 110 for "importing, distributing, offering for distribution or having in possession for distribution" goods bearing a counterfeit mark. Section 110 cross-refers to the section 108 counterfeiting penalty (imprisonment not exceeding four years or fine not exceeding THB 400,000 or both); the section 108 offence in practice carries a knowledge / intent element, but a distributor handling goods bearing obvious counterfeit indicia cannot easily rely on a clean disclaimer of knowledge in the face of red-flag evidence (manifestly off-channel sourcing, abnormal pricing, packaging anomalies). [verify] The contractual answer is a robust indemnity in the distributor agreement and a chain-of-custody protocol that distinguishes goods originating from the HK SPV's authorised supply chain from any goods originating elsewhere.

The HK SPV must therefore:

• Maintain TCIRs recordation in its own name (or in the name of an HK-controlled Thai SPV) with the Thai agent listed as agent of record;
• Ensure the distributor's name, contact details and standing escalation routing are reflected in the TCIRs file (so that Customs can notify both rights holder and distributor in parallel);
• Pre-position a notarised and consularised power of attorney enabling the Thai agent to file the three-day petition without needing fresh HK-board action.

Application 2: Lapsed recordation in a quiet enforcement period

Where the Thai trademark recordation lapsed during an inactive period, Customs may decline to detain a suspect shipment for lack of an inspection-data baseline. The rights holder retains formal access to two backstops, both materially weaker than an active TCIRs file:

• The ex officio Customs Act section 246 prohibited-goods authority remains available because the Ministry of Commerce notification (WIPO Lex 21505) designates infringing goods as prohibited per se. But operationally, without a TCIRs file, Customs has no sample images, no distinguishing-marks PDF, no rights-holder routing, and as a practical matter rarely intercepts on its own initiative.
• A Trademark Act section 116 emergency injunction in CIPIT is a parallel route, but it is rights-holder-driven and does not give Customs new operational visibility.

Emergency recordation through TCIRs is technically possible (online submission followed by an in-person Customs appointment) but actual processing time is operationally determined and is not specified in the cited primary materials. [verify] The defensible answer is calendared renewal at least 30 days before expiry, treated as a non-deferrable docket item by the rights holder's Thai agent — not reliance on an emergency-recordation window in the middle of an active suspension.

Application 3: PRC-origin parallel imports by an unauthorised reseller

Where a PRC-origin shipment of genuine product is imported into Thailand by an unauthorised reseller, the rights holder cannot use Trademark Act sections 108 to 110 to block the importation under the WAHL international-exhaustion doctrine reflected in academic and secondary commentary on Supreme Court Dika 2817/2543. Notification 106/2565 reaches only infringing goods; it does not reach genuine-but-grey goods. The TCIRs route is therefore not a tool against grey-market parallel imports.

The rights holder's recourse in this fact pattern is contractual (indemnities and territorial restrictions in the supply chain), competition-law and consumer-protection-law (where the goods are mis-described, e.g. as "official Thailand-market product" when they are not), and selective-distribution architecture in the underlying commercial arrangements. The USTR PRC framing, however operationally salient at the border, does not change the substantive Thai law: a genuine PRC-origin good imported by an unauthorised reseller is not counterfeit and is not within the scope of Notification 106/2565.

Application 4: Pharma seizure ripening into criminal prosecution

Where a Hong Kong-domiciled pharmaceutical brand owner's product is detained at a Thai port of entry as suspected counterfeit, the realistic timeline is:

• T+0: Customs detains under TCIRs routing; agent of record receives notification.
• T+24h (non-extendible): rights holder's Thai agent attends inspection; identifies the goods as counterfeit; provides genuine reference exemplars and the brand-protection officer's affidavit.
• T+3 days: rights holder files confirmation letter and petition for prosecution; Customs forwards to ECD (routine matters) or DSI (where the shipment value exceeds the special-case threshold under the Special Case Investigation Act B.E. 2547 (2004); counterfeit pharma typically crosses).
• T+1 to 6 months: ECD or DSI investigation; rights holder provides affidavits, exemplar specimens, expert evidence on identifiability (active pharmaceutical ingredient analysis for pharma).
• T+6 to 24 months: criminal trial in CIPIT; conviction yields Trademark Act section 108 penalties (imprisonment up to four years or a fine up to THB 400,000, or both) and, where applicable, Copyright Act section 70 penalties (imprisonment three months to two years or a fine THB 50,000 to THB 400,000, or both, where commercial purpose).
• Disposition: court-ordered destruction under Penal Code section 35 and Copyright Act section 75.

The upstream evidence chain that the HK SPV must pre-stage is non-trivial:

• Chain-of-custody documentation for genuine reference samples held in HK or in a regional brand-protection vault;
• Power of attorney notarised in Hong Kong and consularised at the Royal Thai Consulate-General Hong Kong, drafted to authorise the Thai agent to file the three-day petition, attend inspections and instruct local counsel without needing case-by-case board approval;
• Corporate authority chain: HK SPV register, board resolution authorising the brand-protection officer or the Thai agent;
• For pharma specifically, an identifiability protocol (packaging codes, batch-number provenance, hologram or other anti-tamper indicia) plus a Thai FDA cross-reference for the genuine product.

The three-day petition window is the choke point. Pre-staged PoA and standing instructions to Thai counsel are non-negotiable; no HK-board-resolution cycle can be completed within three Bangkok working days from a cold start.

Application 5: Reading the USTR PRC framing operationally, not as authority

The 2026 USTR Special 301 Report's "China (including Hong Kong)" framing is a U.S. CBP statistical convention. It does not authorise Thai Customs to discriminate by manifest origin, and Thai Customs has no public policy of doing so. [verify] But the operational read-across for a HK-domiciled brand owner is real: in an environment where Thai Customs FY2026 H1 enforcement (per the EABC press summary of 27 April 2026) reached 332 cases, 1.3 million items and THB 2.3 billion in estimated damages, and where the bilateral channel (the U.S.-Thailand Trade and Investment Framework Agreement and the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade negotiations explicitly called out by the USTR) is active, HK-manifested consignments are likely to attract heightened profiling intensity. [verify]

The rights-holder consequence is that HK-domiciled SPVs should not assume that the prior baseline of Customs activity (FY2025 levels) describes the FY2026 environment. Recordation refresh, agent-of-record contact updates, and standing-instruction reviews are the response, not a wait-and-see posture.

Conclusion

Customs Department Notification No. 106/2565, anchored in the Customs Act B.E. 2560 and the Ministry of Commerce prohibited-goods notification (WIPO Lex 21505), is now the operational backbone of Thai border enforcement against trademark-counterfeit and copyright-pirated goods. For a Hong Kong-domiciled brand owner, the doctrinal map is clear: TCIRs recordation is the precondition for the 24-hour summons / 3-day petition regime; an active recordation, a notarised and consularised PoA, and a standing instruction to Thai counsel are the minimum operational baseline; and the regime fails to reach genuine grey-market parallel imports under the WAHL international-exhaustion doctrine reflected in academic and secondary commentary on Supreme Court Dika 2817/2543.

The 2026 USTR Special 301 Report does not change Thai substantive law and does not authorise Thai Customs to discriminate by manifest origin. [verify] But it raises the operational temperature: Thailand stays on the Watch List, the DIP and Thai police MBK Center action plan is named, the bilateral channels (TIFA and the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade negotiations) are explicitly active, and the report consolidates "China (including Hong Kong)" as a single statistical category for U.S. CBP counterfeit-source reporting. Combined with the FY2026 H1 enforcement statistics reported by EABC (332 cases, 1.3 million items, THB 2.3 billion in estimated damages), the operational consequence is that HK-domiciled brand owners cannot assume the FY2026 environment will resemble historical baselines. Recordation refresh, evidentiary pre-staging, and a written escalation runbook tied to the 24-hour and 3-day windows are the response.

Immediate Actions

1. Audit the TCIRs portfolio at thaiipr.customs.go.th/TCIR/login: confirm that every Thai trademark and copyright registration of commercial value is recorded; confirm the agent of record; confirm that the recordal expiry is more than 30 days out; calendar the renewal at T-60 days as an automatic docket item.
2. Refresh the power of attorney instrument: notarise in Hong Kong and consularise at the Royal Thai Consulate-General Hong Kong, drafted to authorise the Thai agent to attend Customs inspections, file confirmation letters and petitions for prosecution, and instruct local counsel without further HK-board action.
3. Build a written escalation runbook keyed to the 24-hour and 3-day windows: name the Thai agent contact, the back-up Thai counsel contact, the brand-protection officer in HK, and the documents to be transmitted within hours of notification (PoA, trademark certificate, exemplar specimens, brand-protection-officer affidavit template).
4. Update the distributor agreements: include indemnity for distributor liability under Trademark Act section 110, an obligation to notify the HK SPV within 24 hours of any Customs contact, and an obligation to designate the rights holder's Thai agent (not the distributor) as the agent of record on the TCIRs file.
5. Pre-stage genuine reference exemplars and chain-of-custody documentation: maintain a sealed HK or regional brand-protection vault with physical exemplars sufficient to support an ECD or DSI investigation and a CIPIT prosecution (for pharma, include batch-number provenance and Thai FDA cross-reference for the genuine product).
6. Map the likely escalation route by goods category: ECD for routine consumer-goods seizures, DSI where the shipment value crosses the Special Case Investigation Act B.E. 2547 (2004) threshold (counterfeit pharma typically crosses; high-value luxury and electronics may cross). Pre-introduce Thai counsel to the relevant ECD and DSI desks where volumes warrant.
7. For HK-manifested supply chains, document the legitimate-source paper trail (commercial invoice, certificate of origin, manufacturer authorisation) so that authorised consignments can be cleared rapidly even in a heightened-profiling FY2026 environment. [verify]
8. Monitor the bilateral channel: the U.S.-Thailand Trade and Investment Framework Agreement and the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade negotiations are the formal channels for USTR-Thailand IPR escalation. Subscribe to USTR press releases and DIP announcements to anticipate procedural shifts that may follow a future Special 301 cycle.

FAQ

Q1. Does Notification 106/2565 require a rights holder to be domiciled in Thailand to record at TCIRs?

A1. No. The European Commission's EU IP Helpdesk note of 16 January 2024 reflects Clause 2 of Notification 106/2565, under which either the owner of the trademark or copyright or the owner's agent or representative may file the application for registration with Customs. [verify] A Hong Kong-domiciled SPV records through a Thai agent of record (typically Thai counsel or a Thai brand-protection consultancy). The rights-holder identity field on the TCIRs file is the HK SPV; the agent-of-record contact is the Thai agent who will receive Customs notifications and attend inspections within the 24-hour window.

Q2. What is the consequence of missing the 24-hour summons window after a Thai Customs seizure?

A2. Per descriptive primary sources, the 24-hour summons window under Notification 106/2565 is non-extendible, and Customs Officers may discharge the goods if the trademark or copyright owner fails to attend the inspection. The operational consequence is therefore release of the seized goods to the importer, with the rights holder pushed back into a post-clearance enforcement posture (criminal complaint to ECD or DSI on the basis of post-release evidence, civil action under Trademark Act section 116, or downstream market-monitoring) that is materially weaker and more expensive than border interdiction.

Q3. Can a rights holder use TCIRs to block genuine parallel imports of its own product from China?

A3. No. Thailand follows international exhaustion of trademark rights as reflected in academic and secondary commentary on Supreme Court Dika 2817/2543, the WAHL case. Once the trademark owner (or someone with the trademark owner's consent) has sold genuine goods anywhere in the world, the importation of those genuine goods into Thailand by a parallel-import reseller does not constitute counterfeiting or imitation under Trademark Act sections 108 to 110, and Notification 106/2565 reaches only infringing goods. The rights holder's recourse in this fact pattern is contractual (indemnities and territorial restrictions in the supply chain), competition-law and consumer-protection-law (where the goods are mis-described), and selective-distribution architecture, not TCIRs.

Q4. Does the 2026 USTR Special 301 Report's "China (including Hong Kong)" framing authorise Thai Customs to treat HK-manifested consignments differently?

A4. No. The USTR's "China (including Hong Kong)" framing (per the 2026 Special 301 Report PDF pp. 18 and 50 to 60) is a U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistical convention for counterfeit-source reporting. It is not a formal Thai policy and does not authorise the Thai Customs Department to discriminate against HK-origin shipments at the manifest level. The operational read-across, however, is that in the FY2026 H1 enforcement environment (per the EABC press briefing of 27 April 2026: 332 cases, 1.3 million items, THB 2.3 billion in estimated damages), HK-manifested consignments are likely to attract heightened profiling intensity, and HK-domiciled SPVs should reflect this in their pre-staged documentation and supply-chain paper trail. [verify]

Q5. Is there a fee to record a trademark or copyright at TCIRs?

A5. Per current TCIRs portal documentation at thaiipr.customs.go.th/TCIR/login, there is no official fee for the recordation application itself. Operational costs arise on the agent side (Thai counsel or brand-protection consultancy fees for preparation and submission, in-person Customs appointment attendance, and ongoing maintenance), not from the Customs Department itself. Renewal is also without official fee but must be filed at least 30 days before expiry to avoid a coverage gap.

Q6. What happens if Customs detains goods, the rights holder confirms infringement at the 24-hour inspection, but the importer disputes the determination?

A6. No statutory counter-bond or bond-for-release mechanism under Notification 106/2565 was identified in the descriptive primary materials reviewed for this article (the EU IP Helpdesk note of 16 January 2024 and the EABC press briefing record of 27 April 2026). [verify] The importer's formal route to challenge the seizure or the underlying infringement determination is action in the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (CIPIT), parallel to (or in defence of) the criminal prosecution route initiated by the rights holder's three-day petition. The practical consequence is that an importer who disputes the determination cannot easily extract its goods from Customs custody pending a court ruling, which materially shifts the leverage to the rights holder once the 24-hour and 3-day windows are met.

Q7. How does the route to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) differ from the route to the Economic Crime Division (ECD) for a Customs-seized matter?

A7. After Customs receives the rights holder's confirmation letter and petition for prosecution within the 3-day window, routine matters are forwarded to the ECD of the Royal Thai Police. Where the shipment value crosses the special-case threshold under the Special Case Investigation Act B.E. 2547 (2004), the matter may be referred to DSI; counterfeit pharmaceutical seizures typically cross the threshold, and high-value luxury and electronics seizures may cross it. DSI handling requires a "special case" referral approved by the Special Case Committee, and the documentary chain that the rights holder must provide is more demanding (corporate authority chain, notarised and consularised PoA, brand-protection-officer affidavit, identifiability protocol). The criminal-trial venue in either route is the CIPIT.

Q8. The FY2026 H1 statistics suggest a major shift in Thai Customs enforcement intensity. How reliable are the figures, and how should a HK-domiciled brand owner treat them in planning?

A8. The FY2026 H1 statistics (332 cases, more than 1.3 million items seized, estimated damage value above THB 2.3 billion) are sourced to the European Association for Business and Commerce (EABC) press briefing of 27 April 2026 at the Customs Department, attended by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce (chair of the National IP Policy Committee), and corroborated by reporting in The Nation Thailand. No official Customs Department statistical bulletin URL has been located for these specific figures, so the EABC briefing record should be treated as the public anchor pending official publication. [verify] The planning posture should treat the FY2026 environment as a materially active enforcement period, and rights-holder documentation, escalation runbooks and recordation refresh cycles should be reset accordingly.

Sources

Lexcelsiam Note

Lexcelsiam's IP-enforcement desk in Bangkok handles TCIRs recordation and refresh, distributor-agreement indemnity drafting tied to Trademark Act section 110 distributor exposure, pre-staged power of attorney instruments notarised in Hong Kong and consularised at the Royal Thai Consulate-General Hong Kong, written escalation runbooks keyed to the Notification 106/2565 24-hour and 3-day windows, and end-to-end representation through ECD or DSI investigation and CIPIT prosecution. We coordinate with HK-side corporate counsel on the corporate-authority chain and with regional brand-protection vaults on chain-of-custody for genuine reference exemplars. Where the matter intersects with parallel imports that fall outside Notification 106/2565 under the WAHL international-exhaustion doctrine, we advise on the contractual, competition-law and consumer-protection-law alternatives. Brand owners reassessing their Thai border-enforcement posture in the wake of the FY2026 H1 enforcement surge and the 2026 USTR Special 301 cycle are welcome to contact the desk for a recordation audit and runbook review.