Foreign company accused of customs fraud in Turkey? Learn defense strategies for smuggling allegations, false customs declarations, GTIP, valuation and origin disputes, seizures, company directors and Law No. 5607 investigations.

A customs fraud allegation against a foreign company in Turkey can have consequences far beyond an ordinary customs penalty. An investigation may lead to seizure of imported goods, examination of company records, questioning of executives and employees, criminal proceedings under Turkish anti-smuggling legislation and substantial disruption of the company’s Turkish operations.

The most important distinction for foreign companies is that a customs error is not automatically customs fraud or smuggling. Incorrect tariff classification, customs valuation, origin documentation or use of a customs preference may create additional duties and administrative penalties without necessarily establishing criminal liability. Whether conduct crosses the line into a criminal offence requires a separate assessment of the specific facts and the elements of the alleged offence.

Customs-related criminal investigations in Turkey principally involve Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607, while Customs Law No. 4458 and Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 may also play central roles. The Ministry of Trade identifies these statutes among the principal legislation governing Customs Enforcement activities.

The risk deserves particular attention in 2026. Turkish authorities are making increasing use of data analytics and post-clearance controls. During the first six months of 2026 alone, secondary controls and post-clearance audits resulted in TRY 8.3 billion in additional assessments and penalty decisions, 43% more than the corresponding period of 2025.

For foreign companies facing allegations of customs fraud, the defense should therefore begin immediately and address the customs, criminal and corporate aspects of the case together.

What Is Considered Customs Fraud in Turkey?

“Customs fraud” is often used commercially as a broad expression. Turkish law, however, requires the alleged conduct to be classified under the specific applicable legislation.

A company may face allegations involving unlawful importation, evasion of customs procedures, use of false or misleading documents, manipulation of invoices, concealment of goods, misuse of customs regimes or other conduct potentially falling within Law No. 5607.

But terminology matters.

Authorities should not simply characterize every underpayment of customs duties as criminal fraud.

A company may have declared the wrong GTIP because classification of a technically complex product was genuinely uncertain. It may have excluded a royalty from customs value because it believed the statutory conditions for inclusion were not satisfied. A foreign supplier may have issued an incorrect origin document without the Turkish importer knowing that it was defective.

The defense must therefore identify the exact act allegedly constituting the offence.

Why Are Foreign Companies Particularly Exposed?

Foreign companies frequently operate through complicated international structures.

The manufacturer may be located in one country, the intellectual-property owner in another, the seller in another and the importing subsidiary in Turkey. Customs declarations may meanwhile be prepared by an independent Turkish customs broker.

This can create misunderstandings regarding responsibility.

For example, the Turkish subsidiary may receive an HS code from its foreign headquarters and transmit it to its customs broker. The broker may use the code for years before Turkish customs later challenges the classification.

The fact that the classification produced lower customs duties does not, by itself, answer whether anyone intentionally committed a criminal offence.

A proper defense reconstructs the entire decision-making chain.

How Can a Customs Audit Turn Into a Criminal Investigation?

The issue may first appear during physical inspection of goods, review of a customs declaration or post-clearance audit.

If customs authorities identify circumstances they believe indicate potential criminal conduct, the matter can move beyond ordinary administrative enforcement.

The scale of current controls is significant. The Ministry of Trade reported that in 2025, 224,738 customs declarations underwent secondary review; 49,975 declarations filed by 7,410 companies ultimately resulted in additional assessments and penalties.

The Ministry has continued expanding these controls in 2026 using systems including the Post-Clearance Control Scoring System (SKPS), Secondary Control Alarm System (İKAS), Inward Processing Control Program (DİKOP) and Customs Value Alarm System (KIYAS) to identify potentially risky companies and declarations.

An investigation may therefore begin long after the goods have cleared customs.

Defense Strategy 1: Determine Whether There Is Actually a Criminal Offence

This should be the starting point.

Foreign companies sometimes focus immediately on explaining why management was unaware of the transaction.

That can be premature.

The first question should be:

Did the underlying customs transaction actually violate the law in the way authorities allege?

If customs claims that the GTIP was wrong, independently determine the correct classification.

If authorities challenge customs value, determine whether the disputed payment legally belongs in the customs value.

If origin is challenged, reconstruct the actual manufacturing origin.

If an A.TR or EUR.1 document is questioned, examine whether it was legally valid and whether the customs treatment applied was correct.

If the underlying customs allegation fails, the foundation of the criminal allegation may also be substantially weakened.

Defense Strategy 2: Separate a Technical Customs Dispute from Intentional Fraud

This distinction can be decisive.

International customs law contains many areas in which reasonable professionals can reach different conclusions.

GTIP classification is a classic example.

Two competing tariff headings may appear plausible for technically complex machinery. Customs authorities may ultimately prefer one classification, but that does not automatically demonstrate that the importer intentionally used another classification to evade duties.

The same applies to valuation.

Whether a royalty or licence fee must be included in customs value can involve complicated contractual and factual analysis.

A defensible legal interpretation that later proves unsuccessful should not automatically be characterized as fraudulent conduct.

Defense Strategy 3: Reconstruct Who Made the Customs Decision

Foreign companies should create a detailed transaction timeline.

Determine who selected the HS/GTIP code, who supplied the product description, who issued the invoice, who determined origin, who provided the certificate, who instructed the customs broker and who approved the import.

The answers may reveal that the disputed information originated outside the Turkish subsidiary.

Alternatively, they may show that a professional customs broker independently made the relevant determination.

This does not automatically eliminate company exposure, but it can fundamentally change the criminal-liability analysis.

Defense Strategy 4: Preserve Evidence Immediately

Document preservation is one of the most important steps after learning of a customs fraud investigation.

Companies should preserve customs declarations, invoices, payment records, contracts, bills of lading, packing lists, product catalogues, technical specifications, Certificates of Origin, A.TR documents, EUR.1 certificates and correspondence with customs brokers.

E-mails and messaging records should also be preserved.

Foreign headquarters may hold documents that the Turkish subsidiary does not possess.

A litigation hold or similar internal preservation procedure can therefore be appropriate in significant investigations.

Documents should not be altered, recreated or backdated after the investigation begins.

Defense Strategy 5: Investigate the Customs Broker’s Role

A customs broker can be central to the case.

The company should determine whether the broker simply entered information supplied by the importer or independently advised on classification, customs value, origin or another disputed issue.

Written communications can become extremely important.

Suppose the importer supplied detailed technical specifications and expressly asked the customs broker to determine the correct GTIP. If the broker independently selected the disputed classification, that evidence is materially different from a situation in which the company instructed the broker to use a particular code despite warnings that it was incorrect.

The defense should establish facts rather than merely blame the broker.

Defense Strategy 6: Obtain Independent Technical Evidence

Many customs fraud cases cannot be defended effectively through legal argument alone.

GTIP disputes may require engineering or technical analysis.

Origin cases may require manufacturing records.

Valuation disputes may require analysis of licensing agreements, transfer-pricing structures and intercompany payments.

The company should therefore consider independent technical opinions where appropriate.

A detailed technical report explaining why a classification was commercially and legally reasonable can be significantly more persuasive than a general statement that the company acted in good faith.

Defense Strategy 7: Examine the Foreign Supplier’s Responsibility

A foreign supplier may have provided the disputed document or information.

This frequently occurs with origin certificates, product descriptions, HS codes and invoices.

The Turkish importer should identify exactly what it received.

Contracts may contain warranties requiring the supplier to provide accurate customs information. Correspondence may demonstrate that the importer specifically requested confirmation of origin or classification.

These documents can be relevant both to the criminal defense and to any later contractual claim against the supplier.

Defense Strategy 8: Protect Directors and Employees Individually

A company investigation can rapidly become an investigation of individuals.

Foreign directors, Turkish managers, logistics employees, finance staff and customs personnel may all be questioned.

However, corporate position alone should not establish personal criminal responsibility.

The defense should determine what each person actually knew and did.

A foreign board member who had no operational involvement in Turkish customs declarations should not automatically be placed in the same factual position as the employee who directly communicated with the customs broker.

Separate legal representation may become appropriate where the interests of the company and an individual executive diverge.

Defense Strategy 9: Determine Whether the Executive Is a Witness or Suspect

This distinction is particularly important before foreign executives travel to Turkey to provide statements.

A company should establish the individual’s procedural status before arranging an interview.

A person questioned as a suspect has procedural rights different from someone providing information as a witness.

Foreign headquarters should therefore avoid simply instructing a director to “go to customs and explain everything.”

The investigation file should first be reviewed to the extent legally accessible.

Defense Strategy 10: Coordinate Customs and Criminal Defenses

A major mistake is allowing the administrative customs dispute and criminal investigation to proceed independently.

The company might argue in its customs objection that it knowingly adopted a particular classification methodology while a director simultaneously tells prosecutors that nobody knew how the classification was chosen.

Such inconsistencies can damage credibility.

The customs objection, criminal defense, technical reports and company statements should therefore be based on a coherent factual record.

This does not mean making unnecessary admissions. It means ensuring that different proceedings do not contain contradictory explanations of the same transaction.

Defense Strategy 11: Challenge Unlawful Seizures

Customs fraud investigations may involve seizure of goods, documents, vehicles or other property.

The existence of an investigation does not automatically justify indefinite retention of everything seized.

The company should determine what authority ordered the seizure, what property was taken, whether the procedural requirements were satisfied and whether continued retention remains necessary.

Turkey continues to use seizure actively in anti-smuggling enforcement. For example, Customs Enforcement reported seizure of 233 vehicles with an estimated market value exceeding TRY 280 million during the first quarter of 2026 in anti-smuggling operations.

For commercial companies, the economic impact of seizure should also be documented.

Defense Strategy 12: Protect Goods Against Deterioration or Loss of Value

Seized goods may be perishable, seasonal or technologically sensitive.

Electronics can rapidly depreciate. Food products can expire. Industrial inputs may become commercially useless if a production cycle is missed.

Therefore, the defense should not focus exclusively on ultimate acquittal.

Immediate procedural measures concerning the custody, preservation and possible return of goods may be equally important.

If property has already been transferred into liquidation procedures, the legal strategy may need to address the proceeds and documentation of the goods rather than physical return alone.

Defense Strategy 13: Do Not Assume Payment Ends the Criminal Case

Foreign companies sometimes receive informal advice that paying the additional customs duties will automatically resolve the criminal investigation.

That assumption can be dangerous.

Administrative customs debt and criminal responsibility are separate issues.

Payment may have particular consequences under specific provisions, but it should not be made solely on the assumption that the prosecutor will automatically close the investigation.

The applicable offence, procedural stage and any statutory mechanism concerning payment or effective remorse should first be examined.

Defense Strategy 14: Consider Effective Remorse Carefully

Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607 contains provisions whose application may affect criminal exposure in qualifying circumstances.

However, an effective-remorse strategy can have major consequences because it may involve payments, admissions or other procedural steps.

The company should first determine whether it disputes the underlying offence.

It makes little strategic sense to concede intentional smuggling merely because someone has suggested that payment will produce a reduced sentence if the underlying conduct may not constitute smuggling at all.

The availability and consequences of any such mechanism should therefore be assessed case by case.

Defense Strategy 15: Review Previous Customs Declarations

A customs fraud allegation concerning one declaration may reveal a much larger historical exposure.

Suppose authorities allege that a product was intentionally classified under the wrong GTIP.

If the company imported the same product under that classification for three years, investigators may examine previous declarations.

Turkey’s risk systems facilitate this type of historical analysis. The Ministry states that current post-clearance controls use advanced data analytics to identify risky companies and declarations among millions of customs transactions.

The company should therefore conduct its own historical review before authorities expand the investigation.

Can an Incorrect GTIP Constitute Customs Fraud?

Potentially, but an incorrect classification alone does not necessarily establish criminal fraud.

The defense should determine whether the classification was technically reasonable, who selected it, whether professional advice was obtained and whether there is evidence of deliberate manipulation.

Product specifications, classification opinions, historical declarations and correspondence with customs brokers can become important.

A genuine classification disagreement should be clearly distinguished from intentional misdescription of goods.

Can Undervaluation Lead to Criminal Charges?

Potentially, particularly where authorities allege deliberate use of false invoices or concealed payments.

But not every customs-value adjustment is fraudulent.

Complex multinational transactions can involve royalties, licence fees, assists and related-party pricing arrangements whose customs treatment requires sophisticated analysis.

The defense should establish whether the alleged underpayment resulted from intentional concealment or from a genuine legal interpretation of customs valuation rules.

Can False Origin Documents Create Criminal Liability?

Potentially.

The key questions include who created the document, who supplied it, whether it was actually false and whether the importer knew or participated in the alleged deception.

A Turkish subsidiary receiving a document from an overseas supplier may have a materially different defense from a company alleged to have deliberately fabricated origin documentation.

Manufacturing records from abroad can therefore become central evidence.

Can a Foreign Parent Company Be Investigated?

Potentially, depending on its role.

Authorities may investigate whether instructions originated from foreign headquarters, particularly where tariff classification, pricing, origin or supply-chain policies are centrally controlled.

However, group membership alone should not establish criminal responsibility.

The parent company’s actual involvement in the relevant transaction must be identified.

This makes preservation of cross-border communications especially important.

Can Foreign Directors Face Criminal Liability?

Potentially, but nationality does not determine criminal responsibility.

The relevant issue is the individual’s alleged involvement.

Investigators may examine whether the director approved the customs strategy, instructed employees to provide false information, knew of irregularities or participated in another relevant act.

Conversely, a director who had no involvement in operational customs matters may have significant grounds to distinguish their position from the persons who handled the transaction.

Can the Company Continue Operating During the Investigation?

Generally, the existence of an investigation does not itself mean that every commercial activity must stop.

However, seizure of goods, customs restrictions, loss of access to documents, financial measures or operational disruption can materially affect business.

Companies should therefore create a parallel business-continuity strategy.

Future imports should also be reviewed immediately.

Continuing to file declarations using the exact customs methodology currently under criminal investigation can substantially increase exposure.

What Should Foreign Companies Avoid Doing?

The company should avoid destroying documents, altering historical records, pressuring employees to provide a particular version of events or attempting to create retroactive paperwork.

Executives should also avoid giving informal explanations to authorities without understanding their procedural status and the evidence already available.

Another major mistake is continuing the disputed customs practice without review.

Once a company has been notified that authorities consider a particular classification, valuation method or origin treatment unlawful, future transactions should receive immediate independent assessment.

How Important Is 2026 Customs Enforcement?

Very important for companies with significant import and export operations.

During January–April 2026, Turkish Customs Enforcement units conducted 2,264 operations involving approximately TRY 34.2 billion worth of goods and narcotics, representing a reported 106% increase compared with the corresponding previous period.

Post-clearance enforcement is also increasing. Additional assessments and penalties arising from secondary controls and post-clearance audits rose from TRY 6.8 billion in 2024 to TRY 13.6 billion in 2025, while another TRY 8.3 billion was assessed during the first six months of 2026.

The Ministry states that these controls will continue using advanced risk-analysis technologies.

For multinational companies, customs compliance should therefore be treated as a significant component of corporate criminal-risk management.

Frequently Asked Questions About Customs Fraud Allegations in Turkey

1. Is every customs declaration error considered fraud in Turkey?

No. An incorrect declaration can lead to additional customs duties or administrative penalties without necessarily satisfying the elements of a criminal offence.

2. What law applies to customs smuggling investigations?

Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607 is a principal statute, while Customs Law No. 4458 and Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 may also be relevant. The Ministry of Trade identifies these laws among the legislation governing Customs Enforcement activities.

3. Can a foreign company be investigated after goods have already cleared customs?

Yes. Turkey conducts secondary controls and post-clearance audits of historical customs transactions.

4. Can an incorrect GTIP lead to a criminal investigation?

Potentially, depending on the circumstances. However, a genuine technical classification dispute should be distinguished from deliberate misdescription or fraudulent conduct.

5. Can company directors be personally investigated?

Yes, potentially. However, criminal responsibility should be assessed individually according to each person’s alleged knowledge and conduct.

6. Can the customs broker also be investigated?

Potentially. Investigators may examine who supplied the disputed information, who prepared the declaration and whether the broker knowingly participated in any alleged unlawful conduct.

7. Can company goods be seized?

Potentially. Seizure can occur during smuggling investigations, although seizure and permanent confiscation are legally distinct matters.

8. Does paying additional customs duties automatically close the criminal investigation?

No. Companies should not assume that payment of the customs assessment automatically terminates criminal proceedings.

9. Should a company investigate its previous imports?

Often yes. If the disputed customs treatment was repeatedly used, historical declarations may create additional exposure.

10. What is the most important first step after receiving a customs fraud allegation?

Preserve evidence, identify the precise allegation, determine the procedural status of the company and executives, and independently examine whether the underlying customs transaction was actually unlawful before making substantive admissions.

Legal Support for Foreign Companies Facing Customs Fraud Allegations in Turkey

A customs fraud or smuggling allegation in Turkey requires more than an ordinary criminal defense. The case may simultaneously involve tariff classification, customs valuation, preferential origin, A.TR or EUR.1 documentation, customs broker responsibility, company management liability, seizures, administrative customs penalties and criminal proceedings under Law No. 5607.

The strongest defense usually begins by reconstructing the underlying customs transaction. The company should establish exactly what was declared, why that customs treatment was selected, who supplied the information and whether there is evidence of deliberate misconduct rather than a technical customs error or reasonable legal disagreement.

This distinction has become increasingly important as Turkey expands data-driven customs enforcement. Secondary controls and post-clearance audits produced TRY 8.3 billion in additional assessments and penalty decisions during the first six months of 2026 alone.

Our law office provides professional legal assistance concerning customs fraud allegations, Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607 investigations, customs criminal defense, GTIP disputes, customs valuation investigations, origin disputes, false customs documents, seizure and confiscation, customs broker liability, foreign director investigations and criminal proceedings in Turkey.

Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign companies, multinational groups, international manufacturers, importers, exporters, investors and company executives with responding to Turkish customs investigations, developing coordinated customs and criminal-defense strategies and protecting company and management rights before customs authorities, prosecutors and Turkish courts.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yıldırım Tower No: 148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

For professional legal assistance concerning customs fraud allegations against a foreign company in Turkey, you may contact our law office for a case-specific assessment of the customs transaction, Law No. 5607 allegations, company and director exposure, seized property and available defense strategies.