

A TAREKS reference number cannot be obtained for goods imported into Turkey. Learn why the application may fail, whether customs clearance is possible, how documentation errors can be corrected, and what legal remedies foreign companies and Turkish importers can consider.
When goods subject to Turkey’s risk-based product safety and import-control system arrive at customs but the importer cannot obtain the required TAREKS reference number, customs clearance can effectively stop. The shipment may remain at the port, airport, customs warehouse or temporary storage area while storage, demurrage and container costs continue to increase. The correct response depends on why the reference number cannot be generated. A technical system problem, incorrect tariff classification, missing documentation, inconsistent manufacturer information, failed product-safety control or an adverse regulatory decision can produce very different legal consequences. Foreign manufacturers and Turkish importers should therefore identify the exact cause before attempting repeated applications or arranging re-export.
TAREKS is Turkey’s risk-based electronic system used in connection with specified import and product-safety controls. For products falling within the relevant import-control framework, the electronic process may produce information or a reference that is used in connection with customs procedures.
The precise requirements depend on the product and the applicable import-control rules for that year.
No. TAREKS requirements are product-specific.
Whether a particular shipment is subject to the system can depend on tariff classification, product category, intended use, applicable technical legislation and the relevant import-control communiqué.
The first question should therefore be whether the goods actually fall within a TAREKS-controlled category.
If the applicable import-control procedure requires a TAREKS result or reference before customs clearance, the importer generally cannot simply bypass that requirement and demand ordinary release.
However, the legal analysis should first determine whether the product is genuinely subject to the relevant control and whether an exemption or another product-specific procedure applies.
The importer should identify the exact reason shown in the system or communicated by the competent authority.
Possible reasons can include an incomplete application, incorrect tariff information, documentation inconsistencies, missing certificates, product identification problems, pending inspection, laboratory testing, adverse conformity findings or technical system problems.
Failure to obtain a reference number does not necessarily mean that authorities have determined that the goods are unsafe.
The application may simply be incomplete or awaiting additional examination.
This distinction is crucial because the remedy for a documentation problem can be very different from the remedy for substantive product non-compliance.
An incorrect tariff code can place goods into the wrong control procedure or create inconsistencies between TAREKS and the customs declaration.
The importer should therefore verify the classification before repeatedly modifying other parts of the application.
Product description, tariff code, quantity, manufacturer, exporter, invoice and other identifying information should be reviewed for consistency.
Even relatively small discrepancies can require explanation or correction.
Foreign manufacturers frequently change their corporate name, address, factory or group structure.
If certificates use an older company name while the commercial invoice identifies the new company, the importer should prepare documents explaining the relationship and continuity.
The model identified in conformity documentation should correspond with the goods actually imported.
Using a general certificate for a different model or product family can create substantial difficulties.
Where applicable, verify whether the Declaration of Conformity correctly identifies the manufacturer and product and refers to the relevant technical framework.
A document that appears complete commercially may still be inadequate for regulatory purposes.
A CE mark on the product does not by itself guarantee completion of the import-control procedure.
Authorities may examine supporting conformity documentation, product identity, labels and other matters relevant to the applicable control.
For products requiring notified-body involvement, verify that the relevant documentation is valid and covers the exact product concerned.
Do not submit unrelated certificates merely because they contain a CE reference.
Depending on the product and control procedure, additional technical documents may be necessary.
The foreign manufacturer should be prepared to respond rapidly because delays in obtaining documentation from abroad can significantly increase storage expenses in Turkey.
If a foreign laboratory report is submitted, confirm the product model, sample identity, testing method, standard and laboratory information.
A report relating to a similar but different product may not resolve the TAREKS issue.
Risk-based selection may result in additional control.
Selection for inspection should not itself be interpreted as a finding that the goods violate Turkish technical requirements.
The importer should cooperate while preserving records concerning the inspection.
Document which products and batches were sampled, the date and the relevant inspection record.
If an adverse laboratory result later arises, sample identity and testing methodology can become important.
Where the applicable procedure requires laboratory examination, the TAREKS process may remain unresolved until the technical assessment is completed.
The importer should monitor both regulatory progress and the commercial costs generated by the delay.
Obtain the complete finding and determine exactly which parameter failed.
The foreign manufacturer should compare the result with its own technical records and any pre-shipment testing.
Depending on the applicable procedure, further analysis, objection or other review mechanisms may need to be considered.
Potentially, depending on the product, procedural stage and nature of the deficiency.
The importer should not assume that every omission can be corrected indefinitely after the goods arrive. Documentation should be submitted within the applicable procedure and any relevant period.
Possibly, depending on the error and stage of processing.
The importer should identify the legally permitted correction mechanism instead of repeatedly submitting inconsistent information.
Certificates, test reports, manufacturer declarations and conformity documentation should reflect genuine historical and technical facts.
False or misleading documentation can transform an ordinary product-safety problem into a much more serious customs or criminal matter.
Whether withdrawal, amendment or a new application is available depends on the particular procedure and stage.
It should not be assumed that an adverse technical finding can simply be erased by filing a new TAREKS application.
Preserve screenshots, error messages, application records and correspondence showing the technical problem.
If the importer has complied with substantive requirements but cannot complete the process because of an electronic problem, evidence of attempted compliance may become important.
A TAREKS problem is both a regulatory issue and a logistics problem.
The importer should immediately determine daily warehouse, terminal, container and demurrage costs and seek commercially available extensions or reductions where possible.
The manufacturer should rapidly provide the importer with the relevant product documentation.
This may include conformity documents, test reports, technical specifications, product photographs, labeling information and documents explaining manufacturer or model changes.
All parties should use consistent information.
Conflicting product descriptions or explanations can make a straightforward documentation issue appear more serious.
Potentially, where the applicable product rules and procedure permit corrective action.
For example, certain documentary or labeling deficiencies may present a different regulatory situation from a fundamental safety defect.
No alteration should be performed without determining whether it is legally permitted.
Unauthorized modification of goods under customs or regulatory control can create additional problems.
If corrective work is permitted, document the original condition, authorization, work performed and corrected condition.
Obtain the formal finding and identify whether the issue concerns documentation, labeling, technical conformity or safety.
The importer should then determine what legal outcomes are available for that specific product.
Re-export may potentially be available in certain non-compliance situations, depending on the applicable customs and product-safety rules.
It should not be treated as a universal right in every TAREKS case.
The importer should obtain the necessary regulatory and customs position before arranging return transportation.
Depending on the nature and seriousness of the non-compliance and applicable legal framework, destruction may become relevant.
Because destruction is irreversible, any disputed decision should be reviewed urgently before implementation.
Potentially. The available administrative or judicial remedy depends on the authority responsible for the adverse measure, its legal basis and the particular import-control procedure.
The importer should obtain the formal decision and record its notification date immediately.
A company may spend weeks exchanging emails or speaking with customs and regulatory personnel while a legal challenge period continues to run.
Where a formal adverse decision exists, procedural deadlines should be identified separately from ongoing technical discussions.
Where an administrative decision creates serious and difficult-to-reverse consequences, the availability of interim judicial protection may need to be evaluated according to the circumstances and applicable procedural rules.
This can become particularly important where re-export or destruction is imminent.
Keep TAREKS application records, screenshots, inspection documents, laboratory reports, invoices, customs declarations, certificates and correspondence.
The administrative chronology can become important in a later challenge.
If the TAREKS problem results from incorrect conformity documentation, defective labeling or genuine technical non-compliance attributable to the foreign supplier, the Turkish importer may have contractual claims.
The contract should be examined for representations concerning Turkish compliance, CE conformity, technical documents, certificates, labeling, product specifications and cooperation with regulatory authorities.
This is partly a contractual question.
If the delay results from supplier non-compliance, the importer may seek to allocate resulting expenses under contractual warranties or indemnities. If the problem results from importer documentation or customs-broker error, responsibility may be different.
Determine what information the importer supplied to the broker and whether the broker entered the application and customs information correctly.
Preserve instructions and correspondence.
If identical products are heading toward Turkey, determine whether they rely on the same documents or technical configuration.
Continuing shipments without understanding the first problem can multiply losses.
A current TAREKS problem does not automatically prove that previous shipments were unlawful.
However, if the issue concerns a recurring certificate, model or product defect, historical imports should be reviewed to assess wider exposure.
Foreign manufacturers regularly selling controlled products into Turkey should maintain a shipment-ready compliance file containing current conformity documentation, product identification, test evidence, labels, technical specifications and records explaining corporate or product changes.
When a TAREKS reference number cannot be obtained, the importer should immediately determine whether the product is genuinely subject to TAREKS, identify the precise reason for the failed or pending application, verify tariff classification, compare TAREKS and customs data, obtain manufacturer conformity documents, check model and certificate consistency, determine whether inspection or testing is pending, preserve system records, monitor storage costs, evaluate permitted correction procedures and obtain the formal adverse decision if authorities refuse completion of the process.
Where the applicable import-control procedure requires a TAREKS result or reference, ordinary customs clearance generally cannot simply bypass that requirement. Product-specific exemptions or alternative procedures should nevertheless be checked.
No. The problem may arise from documentation, product identification, a pending inspection, technical testing or another procedural issue.
Potentially, depending on the nature of the error and procedural stage.
Potentially, where the applicable procedure allows supplementation. The importer should act promptly and should not assume that every deficiency remains correctable indefinitely.
Yes. CE marking does not necessarily eliminate documentary, identification, inspection or other regulatory controls.
Potentially in circumstances where the applicable procedure permits corrective action. Unauthorized modification should be avoided.
Potentially, depending on the applicable product-specific testing and review procedure. The complete laboratory finding and sampling record should be examined first.
Potentially, depending on the legal status of the goods and applicable customs and product-safety rules.
Potentially. The appropriate administrative or judicial remedy depends on the authority, legal basis and specific measure.
Determine exactly why the TAREKS reference number cannot be obtained. A technical system error, missing document, pending inspection, failed laboratory test and final product-safety rejection require completely different strategies.
A failed TAREKS process can result in blocked customs clearance, physical inspection, laboratory testing, storage and demurrage costs, re-export measures, destruction risk and disputes with foreign suppliers. Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign manufacturers, exporters and Turkish importers in TAREKS and product-safety disputes affecting imports into Turkey. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in reviewing adverse import-control decisions, coordinating conformity and technical evidence, evaluating corrective procedures, challenging administrative measures and addressing contractual losses arising from blocked shipments.
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