Travel Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for road warriors and seasoned travelers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I watched a reality show on the Australian border controle where they destroyed an object in a mail package and found drugs. The destruction wasn't really subtle, you couldn't use the object afterwards (it was a bowl). Them doing it was legit, since the object indeed contained contraband. However, if the sending would have been legit, how liable would they have been for destroying your property? The same applies when customs go to your luggage and destroy something, can you get reimbursed?

share|improve this question
All this would depend on the country in question. Formally, I would assume that in most cases the rules are not contingent on their finding contraband (cf. the rules regarding arrests or search of persons, even if customs are not necessarily covered by the same statutes than law enforcement). – Relaxed May 22 '14 at 9:15
@relaxed couldn't you generalise to democratic, less corrupt countries? – user141 May 22 '14 at 9:17
@andra no, you can't. And I seriously doubt that even if they're on paper liable, that in most countries you'd get any compensation. There's always "we had a strong suspicion" or something like that. Nothing to do with the state of lawfulness of the country in question, just bureaucrats covering each other which is universal. – jwenting May 22 '14 at 11:01
@jwenting do you know this for a fact or is it your gut feeling? – user141 May 22 '14 at 11:09
@not from customs, but from other "official agencies", yes. And from other groups breaking your stuff at airports, like luggage handlers. They always either have an excuse that limits their liability or you get sent from one agency or company to the next, each blaming someone else external to themselves, until you give up. – jwenting May 22 '14 at 11:21

Most customs agencies in modern countries have some method for you to claim in the event of damage caused to your posessions / luggage / souvenirs.

For example, since you mention Australia, on their Australian Customs and Border Protection Service website they have a publically published Policy for dealing with allegations of damage at Cargo and Container Examination Facilities. This includes information on how to make a claim, what evidence to provide, and the reasons that they may have for deliberately causing damage, and when this would make them not liable for damage/destruction of your property.

So yes, sometimes they can be liable, and there is usually a means of claiming for this.

share|improve this answer
Typically the agents on the Border Security shows start with non destructive tests (eg xrays) then make a tiny hole or pry open one seam, test what they find, then finally rip the whole thing apart. They need a reason to proceed. – Kate Gregory May 22 '14 at 12:10
@KateGregory I nearly put in an anecdote, left it out, but will now as it's an example. My brother had a plant-material hat from Thailand, and they were inspecting to see what sort of leaf it had. It was one leaf-type throughout, but they pulled it apart - damaging the hat. There was no careful prying before the rip :( – Mark Mayo May 22 '14 at 12:12
@KateGregory Sounds like a protocol that only protects the luggage of a smuggler. When no contraband is in your luggage they'll have to go all the way. – user141 May 22 '14 at 15:00
@andra there are two kinds of searches. Those based on how you're behaving and those based on what they see. Eg for mail (the subject of the question) there is only what they see. Looks weird on xray? Investigate. See some powder? Take tiny sample and test. Tests positive? Rip it apart. The exact opposite of what you're saying. – Kate Gregory May 22 '14 at 15:04
You said in most "modern countries", did you check most of them or it was just an assumption? And did you check the "non modern" countries as well and made sure none of them offers the same? Or it was an assumption because they are non modern? – Heidel Ber Gensis May 23 '14 at 5:56

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.