

Turkish importer refusing to pay for delivered goods? Learn how foreign suppliers can recover unpaid invoices through CISG claims, Turkish enforcement proceedings, commercial litigation, provisional attachment and arbitration.
A foreign supplier exports goods to Turkey. The Turkish importer receives the shipment, completes customs clearance and takes possession of the goods. The invoice becomes due, but payment never arrives.
Initially, the importer may request additional time. It may later claim financial difficulties, raise an unexpected quality complaint, dispute the invoice or simply stop responding.
For the foreign supplier, the problem is no longer merely commercial.
It has become an international debt recovery dispute in Turkey.
Depending on the contract and circumstances, a foreign supplier may potentially pursue the Turkish importer through CISG payment claims, Turkish enforcement proceedings, commercial litigation, provisional attachment, contractual security, arbitration or enforcement against the debtor’s assets.
The key is to act before the importer becomes insolvent or moves assets beyond effective recovery.
Yes, provided that the underlying receivable can be legally established and the appropriate forum and procedure are used.
Foreign incorporation does not by itself prevent a supplier from pursuing a commercial receivable against a Turkish company.
The supplier should first establish four points:
what was sold, whether the goods were delivered, when payment became due, and how much remains unpaid.
The strongest files normally contain considerably more than an invoice.
Purchase orders, sales contracts, order confirmations, bills of lading, CMR documents, customs records, delivery confirmations, bank records, emails and debt acknowledgments can all become important evidence.
For international sales of goods involving Turkey, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) can be particularly important.
The CISG governs qualifying international sales and establishes obligations for both sides. The buyer’s principal obligations include payment of the price and taking delivery, while the Convention provides remedies where contractual obligations are breached. (UNCITRAL)
Official UNCITRAL CISG Information
The contract should therefore be examined before assuming that only domestic Turkish sales rules apply.
Not necessarily.
The CISG can apply to a qualifying international sale even where the agreement does not expressly state that the Convention governs the transaction.
The parties’ places of business, the nature of the transaction, governing-law provisions and any express CISG exclusion should therefore be examined.
A clause choosing Turkish law does not necessarily mean that the CISG has been excluded.
Where the CISG applies, the seller has strong remedies against a buyer that fails to perform its payment obligation.
Article 62 allows the seller, subject to the Convention’s framework, to require the buyer to pay the price, take delivery and perform its other obligations.
This can provide the substantive foundation for a foreign supplier’s claim against a Turkish importer that received the goods but failed to pay.
Article 78 of the CISG also provides for interest where the price or another sum is in arrears.
However, the Convention does not establish a single universal interest rate.
The applicable rate may therefore depend on the contract, supplementary governing law and circumstances of the dispute.
Foreign suppliers should calculate principal and interest separately rather than applying an arbitrary rate to the outstanding invoice.
Potentially.
The CISG also provides a damages framework for losses resulting from contractual breach.
Depending on the circumstances, the seller may attempt to recover losses caused by the Turkish importer’s failure to perform, subject to requirements concerning causation, foreseeability and mitigation.
The supplier should preserve evidence of any additional financial loss rather than simply adding an estimated amount to the debt.
An invoice demonstrates that the seller claims money.
It does not necessarily prove every element of the underlying transaction by itself.
A Turkish importer may argue:
“The goods were never delivered.”
The foreign supplier should therefore preserve shipping and delivery evidence.
Depending on the transaction, this may include bills of lading, CMR documents, airway bills, warehouse records, signed delivery documents, customs documentation and correspondence confirming receipt.
Where the Turkish importer completed customs procedures and imported the goods into Turkey, customs-related documents may become relevant evidence in the commercial dispute.
They can help establish the identity and quantity of the goods, shipment information and import process.
However, customs clearance should not automatically be treated as proving every contractual issue.
The complete transaction record remains important.
Many international sales operate without one lengthy signed contract.
The relationship may instead consist of purchase orders, quotations, pro forma invoices, order confirmations, emails and repeated shipments.
These documents should be analyzed together.
The importer may have confirmed the product, quantity, price, Incoterm and payment deadline through several separate communications.
A written acknowledgment can materially strengthen the foreign supplier’s position.
Suppose the Turkish importer emails:
“We confirm that EUR 425,000 remains outstanding and expect to pay by September 30.”
The importer may later have greater difficulty denying the existence of the debt altogether.
Foreign suppliers should preserve acknowledgments, payment-plan proposals and requests for extensions.
Suppose a Turkish importer receives goods worth EUR 600,000.
It pays EUR 150,000 and requests additional time for the remaining EUR 450,000.
That payment can become relevant evidence concerning the underlying commercial relationship.
The supplier should maintain a clear account showing the original invoice, payments received, outstanding principal and any interest claimed.
This is one of the most common defenses in international debt collection.
The importer may remain silent until the supplier demands payment and then claim that the goods were defective.
Where the CISG applies, this defense should be analyzed carefully.
The Convention regulates conformity of goods as well as the buyer’s examination and notification obligations. (UNCITRAL)
The supplier should immediately determine:
When were the goods delivered?
When did the importer inspect them?
What defect was allegedly discovered?
When was the supplier notified?
Which batches were affected?
Were the goods nevertheless used or resold?
Is there a technical inspection report?
The answers can materially affect the importer’s defense.
The CISG does not permit buyers to ignore conformity issues indefinitely and automatically raise them whenever payment is demanded.
Articles 38 and 39 are particularly important because they address examination and notification of non-conformity.
The timing and specificity of the Turkish importer’s complaint should therefore be investigated.
A contemporaneous detailed technical complaint is very different from a vague allegation raised six months after delivery.
Suppose the Turkish importer received 20,000 units, resold almost all of them and raised no complaint.
When payment proceedings begin, it claims that the entire shipment was defective.
The supplier should preserve evidence of acceptance, use and resale where lawfully available.
Those facts may become important when evaluating whether the later allegations are credible and legally effective.
Depending on the circumstances, Turkish enforcement proceedings may be an important option for collecting a monetary receivable.
A creditor may in appropriate cases initiate ordinary enforcement proceedings and seek a payment order against the debtor.
This can allow a foreign supplier to move directly into Turkey’s debt-enforcement system rather than necessarily obtaining a judgment first.
The correct route depends on the contractual documents, jurisdiction issues and nature of the receivable.
The Turkish importer may pay, remain inactive or object.
If the proceeding becomes final without a successful objection, compulsory enforcement measures may become available subject to the applicable rules.
If the debtor objects in time, ordinary enforcement can stop.
The creditor must then determine the appropriate procedure for overcoming the objection.
An objection does not necessarily mean that the debt disappears.
It means that the foreign creditor may need an additional procedural step to continue recovery.
Depending on the case, this may involve litigation concerning cancellation of the objection or another procedure available under Turkish enforcement law.
Turkish commercial case law includes invoice-based commercial receivables pursued through enforcement proceedings followed by actions seeking cancellation of the debtor’s objection. (Mevzuat)
In other cases, filing a commercial receivables action may be the appropriate route.
The foreign supplier must establish the contractual relationship, delivery, maturity and outstanding amount.
The Turkish importer can then raise defenses concerning payment, delivery, quality, set-off or other contractual issues.
Commercial books and records, invoices, bank transfers and delivery evidence may become important during the proceedings. Turkish court decisions demonstrate the importance that commercial records and underlying transaction evidence can have in invoice and account disputes. (Mevzuat)
Foreign suppliers should also consider Turkey’s mandatory mediation rules.
The Ministry of Justice states that, for commercial actions concerning claims for payment of money or compensation, applying to mediation before filing suit is a procedural prerequisite. (Adalet Bakanlığı)
The framework also expressly covers certain commercial actions associated with enforcement disputes, including cancellation-of-objection cases where the relevant requirements are met. (BASIN VE HALKLA İLİŞKİLER MÜŞAVİRLİĞİ)
This procedural stage should therefore be incorporated into the debt-recovery strategy rather than discovered after preparing the lawsuit.
Not necessarily for every procedural step.
Foreign companies can generally act through appropriately authorized Turkish counsel where the relevant procedural and power-of-attorney requirements are satisfied.
The exact documentation needed should be arranged before proceedings begin, particularly where documents will be issued outside Turkey.
A major international supply contract may contain an arbitration agreement.
The contract may specify arbitration rather than Turkish commercial courts.
If so, the foreign supplier should not automatically start substantive court proceedings without analyzing the arbitration clause.
The contract may identify the arbitral institution, seat, language and governing law.
The CISG may still govern the substantive international sales dispute even though an arbitral tribunal decides the case.
The contract may instead give jurisdiction to courts outside Turkey.
That clause also requires careful analysis.
A foreign supplier may obtain a judgment abroad and later seek enforcement against the importer’s assets in Turkey, subject to applicable recognition and enforcement rules.
Before choosing this route, the supplier should consider where the debtor’s valuable assets actually are.
Winning abroad may have limited commercial value if the debtor’s entire asset base is located in Turkey and enforcement planning was ignored.
A foreign supplier facing serious asset-dissipation risk should consider whether provisional attachment may be legally available.
This can become especially important where the Turkish importer begins transferring assets, emptying accounts or shutting down operations after receiving a payment demand.
Provisional attachment is not automatically available merely because an invoice remains unpaid.
The statutory requirements for the requested measure must be satisfied.
But in an appropriate case, early asset protection can be far more valuable than obtaining a judgment after the debtor has become assetless.
Once the creditor reaches the appropriate enforcement stage, the Turkish debtor’s bank accounts may potentially become relevant to collection.
This is frequently one of the first assets creditors consider.
However, a company experiencing financial distress may maintain little money in its accounts.
Foreign suppliers should therefore avoid designing the entire collection strategy around bank balances alone.
A Turkish importer may itself have significant receivables from customers.
Those third-party receivables can become important in enforcement.
For trading companies, customer receivables may sometimes represent the company’s most valuable current asset.
A collection strategy should therefore consider the debtor’s business model rather than focusing only on physical property.
A Turkish importer may own vehicles, machinery, warehouse inventory or other movable assets.
These may potentially become enforcement targets at the appropriate procedural stage.
But their commercial value should be evaluated realistically.
Inventory can deteriorate.
Machinery may be encumbered.
Vehicles may already have prior attachments.
The objective is efficient recovery, not simply attaching as many assets as possible.
If the Turkish importer owns real estate, it can potentially become relevant to enforcement.
Before relying heavily on a property, however, the supplier should investigate mortgages, existing attachments and other priority rights.
A property worth EUR 1 million provides little practical protection if senior secured claims already consume its entire value.
Some Turkish importers hold shares in subsidiaries or affiliated companies.
These interests may also have economic value.
The creditor should therefore investigate the debtor’s broader corporate structure.
An apparently asset-light operating company may own valuable corporate interests elsewhere.
This is a serious warning sign.
Suppose the foreign supplier sends a formal EUR 1.5 million payment demand.
Within weeks, the Turkish importer transfers vehicles, inventory and other assets to another company controlled by the same shareholders.
The supplier should preserve evidence of the transfers and obtain immediate legal advice regarding interim protection and potential creditor remedies.
A recovery strategy started six months later may be substantially less effective.
Not automatically.
The Turkish company purchasing the goods is generally a separate legal person.
A shareholder does not ordinarily become personally responsible for every company invoice merely because the company fails to pay.
A separate legal basis for personal liability is required.
Foreign suppliers should therefore identify the actual contractual debtor before commencing proceedings.
The position may be different where the shareholder or another person provided a valid personal guarantee.
International suppliers sometimes require business owners to guarantee substantial trade credit.
The guarantee should be reviewed for its validity, form, scope, maximum amount and applicable law.
If enforceable, it may provide an additional recovery target beyond the importing company.
A bank guarantee can substantially improve the supplier’s position.
The foreign supplier should immediately review:
the guaranteed amount,
expiry date,
demand requirements,
documents required for payment,
and whether the guarantee is conditional or structured as an independent payment undertaking.
Do not allow a guarantee to expire merely because the importer repeatedly promises voluntary payment.
Where the transaction was financed through a letter of credit, the problem may not be an ordinary unpaid invoice dispute.
Payment may have been refused because of alleged documentary discrepancies.
The supplier should review the letter of credit, presentation documents and bank’s refusal notice.
The documentary-credit dispute and the underlying sales dispute should be analyzed separately.
Not every unpaid invoice needs immediate litigation.
If the importer has genuine temporary liquidity problems but remains commercially viable, a structured settlement can sometimes produce faster recovery.
However, the supplier should seek stronger documentation than another informal promise.
A settlement can potentially include a written acknowledgment of debt, fixed installment dates, default provisions and additional security.
Suppose enforcement proceedings have begun and the Turkish importer proposes installments.
The supplier should not automatically abandon existing proceedings or release security merely because the first installment is promised.
Any settlement should clearly regulate what happens if the debtor defaults again.
The creditor should avoid exchanging an enforceable position for another unsecured promise.
International sales are frequently denominated in EUR, USD, GBP or another foreign currency.
The supplier should preserve the original contract and invoice currency.
The appropriate formulation of a foreign-currency claim, interest and enforcement request requires analysis of the contract and applicable Turkish rules.
The amount should not be casually converted into Turkish lira before the recovery strategy is established.
If the Turkish importer owes money for several shipments, create a separate schedule.
For each shipment identify:
invoice number,
invoice date,
currency,
amount,
payment deadline,
purchase order,
shipment documents,
delivery date,
payments received,
and outstanding balance.
This becomes particularly valuable where the importer has a genuine complaint concerning one shipment but no defense to ten others.
The Turkish importer may claim that it has a counterclaim against the foreign supplier.
For example, it may allege losses caused by delayed delivery and attempt to set those amounts off against the unpaid invoices.
The supplier should not automatically accept the deduction.
The existence, amount and legal availability of the alleged counterclaim must be established.
Financial hardship alone does not ordinarily erase an existing payment obligation.
But it changes the commercial risk.
If the importer is approaching insolvency, the foreign supplier may need to prioritize asset protection and creditor-position analysis rather than lengthy correspondence.
A financially healthy debtor refusing to pay and an insolvent debtor unable to pay require different strategies.
Foreign suppliers should pay particular attention where the Turkish importer stops answering communications, closes facilities, repeatedly changes payment dates, sells important assets, proposes unusually long installment plans or becomes subject to multiple creditor proceedings.
None of these facts alone proves insolvency.
Together, however, they can justify a more urgent recovery strategy.
Assume a German manufacturer sells EUR 900,000 of industrial equipment to a Turkish importer.
The equipment is shipped, cleared through Turkish customs and delivered.
The importer pays EUR 200,000 but fails to pay the remaining EUR 700,000.
For four months, it repeatedly promises payment.
After receiving a formal demand, it suddenly claims that part of the machinery was defective.
The foreign supplier possesses the sales agreement, invoices, bill of lading, customs documents, delivery records and several emails acknowledging the EUR 700,000 balance.
The legal strategy should first determine whether the CISG governs the transaction.
The timing and substance of the alleged defect complaint should then be analyzed.
The contract’s jurisdiction or arbitration clause must be checked.
If Turkish enforcement is available and appropriate, enforcement proceedings may be considered.
If the importer objects, the supplier may need to pursue the appropriate procedure to overcome that objection.
At the same time, the importer should be investigated for assets and any signs of dissipation.
The biggest mistake would be spending another six months relying exclusively on promises of voluntary payment.
The foreign supplier should first secure the entire transaction file and calculate the exact outstanding principal. It should then identify the governing law, CISG applicability, jurisdiction or arbitration agreement and contractual interest provisions.
Delivery evidence and any acknowledgment of debt should be preserved.
If the Turkish importer alleges defects, the supplier should immediately request the original complaint, inspection evidence and dates of notification.
The supplier should then decide whether to pursue settlement, Turkish enforcement, commercial litigation or arbitration.
At the same time, the debtor’s assets and financial condition should be investigated.
Legal action and collection planning should proceed together.
Yes, potentially. The appropriate route depends on the sales contract, evidence, dispute-resolution provisions and nature of the receivable.
Yes. Qualifying international sales involving a Turkish importer may fall within the CISG unless the Convention has been effectively excluded or another exception applies.
Where the CISG applies, Article 62 provides an important remedy allowing the seller to require payment subject to the Convention’s framework.
Potentially. CISG Article 78 recognizes interest on sums in arrears, although the applicable rate requires separate analysis.
Potentially. Depending on the circumstances, a monetary receivable can be pursued through Turkish enforcement mechanisms without necessarily obtaining a judgment first.
A timely objection can stop ordinary enforcement. The foreign creditor may then need to use the appropriate legal procedure to overcome the objection.
For Turkish commercial lawsuits concerning payment of monetary receivables or compensation, mandatory pre-litigation mediation generally applies. (Adalet Bakanlığı)
The substance and timing of the complaint should be examined. Under the CISG, the buyer’s examination and notice obligations can be particularly important.
Provisional attachment may potentially be available where its statutory requirements are satisfied. It is not automatic merely because payment is overdue.
Not simply because the person owns the importing company. A separate basis for personal liability, such as an enforceable guarantee, would generally be required.
When a Turkish importer refuses to pay a foreign supplier, the strongest strategy usually combines substantive international sales law with Turkish debt-enforcement planning.
The foreign supplier should establish the sale, delivery, maturity and exact outstanding amount. Where the CISG applies, the Convention recognizes the buyer’s payment obligation and provides seller remedies for non-performance. (UNCITRAL)
The procedural strategy is equally important. Depending on the agreement and circumstances, recovery may involve Turkish enforcement proceedings, mandatory mediation and commercial litigation, or international arbitration. If ordinary enforcement is challenged, further proceedings may be necessary to overcome the debtor’s objection. Turkish court materials demonstrate this enforcement-plus-litigation route in commercial invoice disputes. (Mevzuat)
Most importantly, foreign suppliers should think about collection before judgment. A strong EUR 1 million claim against a company that has already transferred all valuable assets is commercially very different from the same claim pursued while bank accounts, receivables, property and other assets remain available.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign exporters, manufacturers and international suppliers with unpaid invoices in Turkey, Turkish importer debt recovery, CISG payment claims, enforcement proceedings, objections to enforcement, provisional attachment, commercial litigation, arbitration and cross-border debt collection.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yıldırım Tower, Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey