

Unexpected Turkish import taxes make a supply contract significantly more expensive. Learn when a foreign buyer may seek termination, adaptation or renegotiation based on contract terms, Incoterms, change-in-law and hardship rules.
A foreign buyer may sign a supply contract expecting a particular landed cost, only to discover before or during importation into Turkey that substantial additional taxes or customs charges apply.
The additional cost may result from:
The buyer may then ask:
“Can we terminate the supply contract because the transaction is now much more expensive than expected?”
The answer is not automatically yes.
Unexpected import taxes do not, by themselves, create a universal right to terminate a supply contract. The outcome depends principally on the contract, allocation of customs risk, applicable Incoterm, governing law, foreseeability of the tax and the magnitude of the economic change.
Where Turkish law governs, hardship principles under Article 138 of the Turkish Code of Obligations may also become relevant in exceptional circumstances if the statutory conditions are satisfied.
The recommended strategy is:
Verify the tax → determine why it applies → review the contract → identify who assumed customs risk → check change-in-law, hardship and termination clauses → determine whether the cost was foreseeable → calculate the economic impact → consider adaptation or renegotiation → terminate only where a sound contractual or legal basis exists.
Before considering termination, verify the customs calculation.
The supposed unexpected tax may result from:
Do not terminate a valuable commercial contract because of a customs assessment that may itself be wrong.
Determine whether the cost is:
ordinary customs duty
additional customs duty
anti-dumping duty
safeguard measure
import VAT
or another import charge.
Different measures can have different legal and contractual consequences.
A classification change can dramatically increase landed cost.
Obtain:
Determine whether Customs is using the correct tariff code.
Origin may affect:
The shipping country is not necessarily the customs origin.
Do not base a termination decision on a percentage alone.
Prepare:
Contract price
original expected import cost
versus
actual import cost after the unexpected measure.
Then calculate the effect on:
Review:
The contract may already allocate this risk.
If the contract expressly states:
“All import duties and taxes shall be borne by the buyer,”
the buyer may have assumed substantial customs-cost risk.
If the seller expressly assumed import duties, the analysis may be different.
The entity legally responsible to Turkish Customs may not be the party that ultimately bears the cost under the supply agreement.
Separate:
customs liability
from
contractual cost allocation.
The agreed delivery term can indicate which party is responsible for import clearance and import-related costs.
However, Incoterms should be read together with the rest of the contract.
A separately negotiated customs or tax clause may materially affect the result.
The contract should ideally identify the applicable version, for example Incoterms 2020.
Do not analyze rights based merely on an abbreviation appearing on an invoice.
Under a DDP-type arrangement, import obligations are generally allocated more heavily to the seller than under many other delivery structures.
Nevertheless, the entire agreement and the practical Turkish importer structure must be reviewed.
A common commercial misunderstanding is that because the seller arranges freight and insurance, the seller must also bear Turkish import taxes.
That conclusion does not automatically follow.
The actual delivery term and contract should be examined.
A fixed price can be commercially important.
However, ask whether the contract price is:
The wording matters.
This is often one of the most important provisions.
A clause may specifically address:
The contract may provide for:
price adjustment
renegotiation
or
termination.
For example, termination may become available only where the regulatory change increases total contract cost above a specified percentage.
Calculate the threshold carefully.
There is a major difference between:
a genuinely new tax introduced after signing
and
an existing tax that the buyer simply failed to identify during pricing.
The second situation may significantly weaken an unforeseeability or hardship argument.
If the applicable import duty was publicly in force when the contract was signed, the buyer may have difficulty arguing that the cost was an extraordinary subsequent event.
Customs due diligence before signing is therefore important.
If the measure was introduced after signing, identify:
This timeline may determine both customs liability and contractual remedies.
A new customs measure may contain transitional treatment for qualifying goods.
For example, legal analysis may be necessary for goods:
Do not assume either that grandfathering exists or that it does not.
Usually, increased cost should not automatically be equated with force majeure.
Force majeure commonly concerns events preventing performance rather than merely making performance less profitable.
However, the contractual definition may be broader.
Read the clause.
Some contracts define force majeure to include:
Even then, determine whether the particular measure actually prevents contractual performance or merely increases cost.
Unexpected import taxes often create an economic imbalance, not impossibility.
That makes hardship potentially more relevant than force majeure.
Check whether the contract contains a hardship clause.
Where Turkish law governs, Article 138 provides a statutory framework for adaptation of contracts where extraordinary circumstances arising after contract formation fundamentally alter the contractual equilibrium under the required conditions.
The provision is not an automatic escape mechanism for an unprofitable contract.
Its conditions must be established carefully.
A buyer cannot normally create its own customs problem and then characterize the resulting expense as an external hardship.
For example, an incorrect declaration caused by the buyer may require a different analysis.
Ask whether a prudent commercial party could reasonably have anticipated the change when the contract was signed.
Relevant evidence may include:
The more foreseeable the risk, the weaker a hardship argument may become.
A minor increase in import cost is unlikely to justify drastic contractual remedies.
Calculate whether the new charge fundamentally changes the transaction.
For example:
Original landed cost: USD 1 million
Unexpected import charge: USD 20,000
is very different from:
Unexpected import charge: USD 400,000.
Where the legal conditions are satisfied, the appropriate remedy may initially involve seeking adaptation of the contractual relationship rather than immediately ending it.
Possible adjustments include:
Depending on the contract and governing law, termination may become relevant where:
Do not assume hardship automatically means immediate termination.
An unjustified termination can expose the buyer to claims for:
Obtain a legal basis before sending the notice.
A termination clause may require:
Failure to follow the notice procedure can weaken the termination.
Some contracts require the parties to negotiate in good faith before termination becomes available.
Follow that sequence.
If negotiations begin, avoid correspondence that unintentionally waives contractual rights.
A reservation-of-rights approach may be appropriate.
Depending on the governing law and contract, acceptance, payment or continued performance may affect later arguments.
Coordinate customs release decisions with the contractual strategy.
Refusing to clear goods can generate:
The buyer has a duty to consider mitigation.
Even where the buyer has a valid claim against the seller, avoid unnecessarily increasing the loss.
Potential mitigation may include:
A buyer may need to pay the disputed customs amount to release commercially important goods.
That payment does not necessarily determine the final contractual allocation between buyer and seller.
Document the position carefully.
Keep:
The buyer must prove what changed and when.
Keep pricing models and correspondence showing:
This may become relevant to the contractual dispute.
If the seller expressly represented that the goods would attract a particular customs treatment, examine whether that representation became:
Do not assume every informal statement creates contractual liability.
An international supply agreement may fall within the CISG depending on the parties, applicable law and contractual exclusions.
The relationship between the CISG, contractual risk allocation and applicable domestic law should be considered before termination.
The dispute may need to be resolved before:
The buyer should know the forum before issuing a termination notice.
Where high-value goods are already in Turkey and the contractual dispute is urgent, assess whether interim or emergency relief is available under the applicable dispute-resolution mechanism.
Possible commercial solutions include:
Any agreement should be documented.
Include clear provisions covering:
This prevents the same dispute from recurring.
The recommended sequence is:
Verify the tax
→ verify classification and origin
→ calculate the real additional cost
→ review the supply contract
→ identify the Incoterm
→ determine who assumed customs risk
→ review change-in-law and hardship clauses
→ determine foreseeability
→ review Article 138 where Turkish law applies
→ consider adaptation and renegotiation
→ comply with notice requirements
→ terminate only where a defensible legal basis exists.
No. The contract, governing law, allocation of customs risk and circumstances of the tax increase must be examined.
That can strengthen a change-in-law or hardship argument, but it does not automatically create a termination right.
A failure to identify an existing import tax may be treated differently from a genuinely new regulatory measure introduced after contracting.
Not automatically. Increased cost is generally different from impossibility, although the contractual definition of force majeure may affect the analysis.
Potentially, where Turkish law governs and the statutory conditions for hardship and adaptation are satisfied. The provision does not automatically apply whenever a contract becomes less profitable.
Potentially, yes. Contractual change-in-law or hardship provisions, negotiated amendments or applicable legal adaptation mechanisms may support a price adjustment.
The seller’s contractual undertaking may materially change the result. The exact wording and delivery structure should be reviewed.
Not automatically. Leaving goods uncleared can generate substantial storage, demurrage and other losses.
Potentially, depending on the contractual allocation. Payment to Customs and ultimate contractual responsibility are separate questions.
Terminating the supply contract immediately without first confirming that the import tax is legally correct and determining whether the contract actually places the customs-risk burden on the buyer or seller.
Unexpected import taxes may create disputes concerning:
Additional customs duties
Anti-dumping duties
Supply contract termination
Incoterms
Change-in-law clauses
Hardship
Contract adaptation
Price adjustment
and international commercial arbitration or litigation.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign buyers, international suppliers, importers and multinational companies facing supply-contract disputes arising from unexpected customs duties and import taxes in Turkey.
Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in reviewing customs assessments and international supply contracts, determining customs-cost allocation, analyzing hardship and change-in-law provisions, negotiating price adjustments and pursuing termination, litigation or arbitration where legally appropriate.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey