

Turkish Customs compares imported goods with another company’s imports and increases customs value. Learn how foreign companies and Turkish importers can challenge comparability, customs valuation, additional duties and penalties.
When Turkish Customs questions the declared transaction value of imported goods, it may examine information concerning identical or similar goods imported by other companies. A serious dispute can arise where Customs concludes that another importer’s goods entered Turkey at a higher value and uses that information to question or replace the value declared by the company under review. A higher price appearing in another customs declaration does not, by itself, necessarily establish that the importer’s declared transaction value is incorrect. The importer should examine whether the goods are genuinely comparable, whether the transactions occurred under comparable commercial conditions, whether differences in quantity, quality, brand, market level, freight, insurance, payment terms or contractual circumstances were properly considered, and whether Customs followed the applicable valuation methodology. Where an assessment is issued, Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office and Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya can assist foreign manufacturers, exporters and Turkish importers in challenging the valuation methodology, additional customs duties and related penalties.
Customs authorities may encounter a declared value that appears significantly different from values observed for identical or similar goods. This can lead to additional scrutiny concerning whether the declared transaction value reflects the amount actually paid or payable and whether all elements legally required to be included in customs value have been declared.
The existence of a price difference can trigger examination. It should not automatically be treated as proof that the lower value is false.
A customs valuation dispute should begin with the importer’s own transaction.
The company should preserve the sales contract, purchase order, commercial invoice, bank payment records, correspondence, price lists, discounts, freight documentation, insurance records and evidence concerning any subsequent payments connected with the goods.
The objective is to demonstrate the commercial reality of the declared price.
Two businesses can legitimately purchase apparently similar goods at different prices.
Differences may arise from annual purchasing volume, bargaining power, long-term supply agreements, distributor status, advance payment, inventory clearance, market-entry discounts, product specifications or different delivery terms.
Customs should therefore examine comparability rather than merely identifying the highest price in its database.
This is one of the first questions that should be asked.
Goods sharing the same tariff classification are not necessarily identical products. The importer should compare manufacturer, model, specifications, material, dimensions, grade, production technology, quality and commercial reputation.
Where the comparison concerns similar rather than identical goods, technical and commercial differences become even more important.
The company should identify characteristics that influence market value and explain why the comparison requires adjustment or should not be used.
A single tariff classification can contain products sold across a broad price range.
Industrial components, chemicals, machinery, electronics, textiles and other products may share a classification while differing substantially in quality and commercial value.
A valuation analysis based only on tariff classification may therefore require challenge.
A branded product manufactured by an internationally recognized producer may command a different price from an equivalent product produced by a smaller manufacturer.
Brand reputation and commercial position can affect transaction prices even where products perform similar functions.
Differences in raw materials, durability, tolerances, purity, grade, performance and certification may explain price differences.
Technical specifications should be submitted where quality is relevant.
The importer should compare exact model and catalogue numbers.
A later-generation model, higher-capacity product or premium version should not automatically be used as a benchmark for a basic model merely because both fall within the same customs heading.
A company importing 50,000 units may negotiate a substantially lower unit price than a company importing 500 units.
The quantity and commercial level of the compared transactions should therefore be examined.
A distributor purchasing directly from a manufacturer may receive a different price from an intermediary purchasing through another trader.
The level of trade and position of the buyer in the distribution chain can materially affect price.
A buyer committed to minimum annual volumes may receive contractual discounts unavailable to occasional customers.
Submit the framework agreement, purchase commitments and historical transaction records where this explains the difference.
Volume discounts, early-payment discounts, promotional pricing and negotiated commercial reductions should be supported by genuine contractual and accounting records.
A discount created retrospectively after Customs begins an investigation will attract significantly greater scrutiny.
A transaction involving advance payment may have different pricing from a transaction involving extended credit.
The importer should document payment timing and any financing element affecting commercial negotiations.
Two invoice values may not be directly comparable if one transaction includes freight or insurance and another does not.
The valuation analysis should place transactions on a comparable basis.
Shipping costs vary by route, carrier, shipment size and market conditions.
If Customs compares values from different periods or different ports of shipment, transportation costs should be examined carefully.
Different insurance arrangements can affect the components ultimately included in customs value.
The comparison should therefore focus on properly adjusted customs values rather than superficially comparing commercial invoice totals.
Commodity prices, currency movements, freight rates and market demand can change rapidly.
An import made many months earlier may not provide a reliable benchmark for a transaction concluded during substantially different market conditions.
Where the imported product’s price is closely connected with steel, aluminum, chemicals, petroleum derivatives or another commodity, demonstrate changes in relevant input prices between the compared transactions.
Oversupply, factory shutdowns, excess inventory, seasonal demand or economic contraction can influence legitimate transaction prices.
Commercial context should therefore form part of the valuation defense.
Goods classified under the same tariff code but manufactured in different countries may have different production costs and commercial values.
Customs should not ignore meaningful differences in manufacturing circumstances when evaluating comparability.
A trading company may export goods manufactured elsewhere.
The importer should distinguish the manufacturer, seller, country of origin and country of dispatch when analyzing another company’s transaction.
If the Turkish importer and foreign supplier are related, Customs may examine whether the relationship influenced the price.
The company should be prepared to explain the pricing methodology and provide relevant evidence supporting the commercial acceptability of the transaction value.
Corporate affiliation should not automatically be equated with undervaluation.
The factual question is whether the relationship affected the transaction price under the applicable valuation rules.
Intercompany pricing policies, transfer-pricing reports and comparable commercial transactions can potentially assist in explaining the pricing structure.
However, corporate income tax transfer pricing and customs valuation are not identical legal systems. A transfer-pricing report should therefore not automatically be assumed to resolve the customs issue.
Where an additional assessment relies materially on another import transaction, the importer should seek to understand the basis of the comparison.
Relevant questions include whether the comparator goods are identical or similar, when they were imported, their commercial level and whether appropriate adjustments were made.
Customs authorities may hold commercially confidential information concerning another business.
This can create procedural complexity. The importer may not necessarily receive unrestricted access to another company’s sensitive commercial records.
Nevertheless, the company should seek sufficient reasoning to understand and challenge the valuation methodology applied against it.
A company should be able to understand the essential basis on which additional customs liability has been calculated.
If crucial comparator information cannot be tested at all, the procedural implications should be examined as part of the administrative objection and any subsequent judicial proceedings.
The importer should determine whether Customs relied on a single transaction or a broader dataset.
A single unusual import should not necessarily be treated as representative of normal commercial value.
If several comparable imports exist at different prices, the methodology used to select a particular benchmark should be examined carefully.
The importer should identify lower-priced comparable transactions where available and legally usable.
A strong valuation defense can include a structured comparison covering manufacturer, model, technical specifications, quality, origin, quantity, transaction date, commercial level, delivery terms and other relevant differences.
This transforms a general objection into a fact-specific valuation argument.
The supplier should provide price lists, discount policies, production-cost information where appropriate, customer categories and evidence showing why the Turkish buyer received the invoiced price.
A short supplier letter merely stating that the invoice is correct may not be sufficient in a substantial valuation dispute.
Preserve SWIFT records, bank statements and other payment evidence demonstrating what was actually transferred to the foreign supplier.
Any additional payments should be identified and explained.
Payments made to third parties, manufacturers, licensors or related companies may attract scrutiny if Customs considers them connected with the imported goods.
The importer should therefore review the complete payment structure.
If the Turkish importer separately pays royalties or license fees, Customs may examine whether any amount must be included in customs value under the applicable conditions.
This issue should be analyzed separately from the comparator-price dispute.
Tools, molds, materials, designs or other items provided by the buyer may also raise valuation questions depending on the circumstances.
The company should understand every component potentially affecting customs value.
Year-end adjustments, rebates, commissions or subsequent payments can attract attention during post-clearance audits.
Their legal treatment should be analyzed according to their true commercial purpose.
If Customs discovers a valuation difference during an audit, authorities may review historical declarations involving the same supplier or pricing method.
The company should therefore assess its broader exposure immediately.
Identify declarations involving the same product, supplier and pricing structure.
Create a declaration-by-declaration matrix showing customs value, quantity, product, payment and any adjustments.
Prices and contractual terms may change over time.
Each declaration should be analyzed according to the relevant transaction rather than assuming that a finding concerning one shipment automatically applies to every previous import.
If Customs increases the customs value, the change can affect customs duties and other import taxes calculated by reference to customs value.
The financial exposure should therefore be calculated comprehensively.
An additional customs debt and an administrative penalty are related but legally distinct issues.
The importer should examine the legal basis, calculation and factual requirements of each decision separately.
A genuine disagreement concerning comparability, discounts, related-party pricing or valuation methodology should not automatically be characterized as intentional undervaluation.
The company’s original documentation and compliance process may become important in defending against penalty allegations.
Determine what information the importer provided to its customs broker and how the declaration was prepared.
Where the broker lacked information concerning payments, discounts or contractual arrangements, internal compliance procedures may need improvement.
If the foreign exporter supplied false invoice information, concealed additional payments or provided inaccurate valuation data, contractual claims may arise.
Review warranties, indemnities and customs-cooperation obligations in the supply contract.
Where Turkish Customs issues a formal additional assessment or penalty decision, the importer should immediately identify the applicable administrative objection period.
For decisions falling within the general customs objection framework, the short period under Article 242 of the Customs Law can be critical.
Do not allow informal discussions with Customs to consume the formal challenge period.
The objection should identify the disputed assessment and explain why the comparator transaction is not legally or commercially comparable.
Attach invoices, contracts, payment records, technical specifications, quantity information, discount evidence and other supporting documentation.
Where goods differ in composition, grade, quality or performance, an independent technical report may help demonstrate why another company’s imported product is not an appropriate comparator.
Complex pricing structures may require accounting analysis showing how discounts, payments and contractual adjustments operated.
The evidence should remain connected with actual books and records.
The importer should evaluate judicial remedies before the competent administrative judiciary according to the applicable procedural framework.
The litigation file should contain both the legal valuation argument and the technical and commercial evidence demonstrating why the comparison is defective.
If additional duties have already been paid and the valuation assessment is later overturned, the importer should evaluate the applicable repayment procedure and related requirements.
Payment should not automatically be treated as acceptance of the substantive valuation position.
If the same supplier continues exporting goods to Turkey, determine whether future declarations will face the same valuation issue.
Continuing to use a disputed methodology without preparation can multiply exposure.
For recurring imports, maintain a file containing the supply agreement, pricing formula, discount policy, payment structure, technical product information, freight arrangements and any relevant related-party analysis.
This can significantly improve the company’s ability to respond to future questions.
When Turkish Customs compares an importer’s goods with another company’s imports and increases customs value, the importer should immediately obtain the formal assessment, protect the objection deadline, identify the comparator methodology, verify whether the products are genuinely identical or similar, analyze differences in quantity, quality, commercial level, timing, delivery conditions and manufacturer, preserve payment evidence, obtain foreign supplier pricing records, review related-party issues and historical declarations, and prepare a technical and commercial comparison supporting the declared transaction value.
Comparable imports may become relevant under the applicable customs valuation methodology, but the legal conditions and actual comparability of the transactions must be examined.
No. Different companies can legitimately pay different prices because of quantity, commercial level, discounts, specifications, payment terms and other factors.
No. A tariff heading can contain products with substantially different specifications, quality and commercial values.
Potentially. Genuine discounts should be supported by contracts, purchasing volumes, invoices and payment records.
Customs may examine whether the relationship influenced the price. The existence of the relationship itself should not automatically be equated with an invalid transaction value.
Customs may possess protected commercial information. The procedural question is whether the affected importer receives sufficient information concerning the basis of the assessment to exercise its defense rights effectively.
Potentially, depending on the circumstances and applicable provisions. The additional customs debt and penalty should be challenged on their respective legal grounds.
Yes. A valuation dispute may lead to scrutiny of earlier declarations using the same supplier or pricing method.
Where the administrative objection is unsuccessful, judicial remedies may be available before the competent administrative judiciary under the applicable customs procedure.
Demonstrating that the declared price reflects the genuine commercial transaction and showing, with technical and commercial evidence, why the other company’s imports are not directly comparable or require material adjustments.
Customs valuation disputes involving comparator imports can result in additional customs duties, import taxes, administrative penalties, post-clearance audits and historical declaration exposure. Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign manufacturers, exporters, foreign-owned companies and Turkish importers facing customs valuation disputes in Turkey. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in reviewing comparator transactions, defending transaction value, preparing customs objections, coordinating technical and accounting evidence, challenging additional assessments and penalties, and pursuing administrative litigation where necessary.
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