

Turkish Customs rejects an importer’s declared value and relies on internet prices. Learn when online prices can be used as evidence, how customs valuation should be determined, and how importers can challenge additional duties and penalties.
When Turkish Customs questions the declared value of imported goods, officials may examine websites, online marketplaces, foreign supplier catalogues, manufacturer pages or other publicly available pricing information. This can create a serious problem where an importer purchased goods for USD 10,000 but Customs identifies apparently identical goods advertised online for USD 18,000 and concludes that the invoice value is too low. The existence of a higher internet price, however, should not automatically establish the customs value of the imported goods. Customs valuation is governed by a legal methodology, and the administration must distinguish between information creating reasonable doubt about the declared transaction value and evidence legally sufficient to determine a replacement customs value.
Customs authorities may examine publicly available pricing information when reviewing whether a declared import value appears commercially credible. A substantial difference between the invoice price and publicly advertised prices can trigger further scrutiny.
This is particularly common with consumer electronics, machinery, spare parts, luxury products, branded goods, industrial equipment and products for which prices are easily accessible online.
The critical issue is what Customs does with that information.
Not merely because a higher price appears online.
The customs valuation process begins with the applicable transaction-value framework. If the declared transaction value cannot legally be accepted, the administration must proceed according to the applicable customs valuation rules rather than simply choosing a convenient price found through an internet search.
An online price may potentially contribute to doubts or evidentiary analysis, but that does not mean every advertised price constitutes the legally correct customs value.
For ordinary commercial imports, the actual price paid or payable for goods sold for export to Turkey is central to the customs valuation analysis, subject to the legally required conditions and adjustments.
Accordingly, the importer should first establish that the declared price represents a genuine commercial transaction.
Commercial goods are not always sold at standard retail prices. An importer may legitimately obtain a lower price because of quantity, long-term commercial relationships, clearance stock, end-of-season sales, negotiated discounts, damaged packaging, older models, advance payment or other commercial circumstances.
The fact that another buyer would pay more does not necessarily establish that the importer’s invoice is false.
One of the most important valuation problems arises when Customs compares a wholesale import transaction with a retail internet listing.
A retail price may include distributor margins, retailer profit, domestic taxes, marketing costs, warranty costs, local logistics and other elements that do not correspond with the manufacturer’s export price.
A comparison between the two therefore requires careful analysis.
An online seller may advertise goods for USD 1,000 but ultimately sell them for USD 800.
Internet listings can represent asking prices rather than completed transaction prices. The importer should therefore question whether the price identified by Customs reflects an actual sale.
Product identity must be examined carefully.
Two products can look almost identical online while differing in model year, specification, capacity, quality grade, accessories, warranty, condition, geographic version or production origin.
A valuation comparison should not ignore these differences.
The importer should compare the exact model, product code, serial information and technical specifications of the imported goods with the online product used by Customs.
A newer or higher-specification model may command a substantially higher price.
Internet pricing becomes particularly problematic for used machinery, vehicles, industrial equipment and refurbished products.
The condition, operating hours, age, maintenance history, missing components and remaining useful life can materially affect value.
A price for a new machine should not automatically determine the customs value of a used machine.
The same product can legitimately have different prices in different countries.
Local competition, distribution systems, taxes, demand, purchasing power and manufacturer pricing policies can produce substantial differences between markets.
The relevant transaction should therefore be examined in its actual commercial context.
A website may display the price for one unit while the importer purchased 5,000 units.
Large-volume commercial orders can legitimately receive substantial discounts. Purchase quantities and the supplier’s pricing policy should therefore be documented.
Where the importer is an authorized distributor, reseller or long-term customer, preserve the distribution agreement, price lists, rebate arrangements and correspondence explaining preferential pricing.
This evidence can help demonstrate why the transaction differs from public retail pricing.
Manufacturers sometimes sell discontinued products or excess inventory at substantial discounts.
The importer should obtain documents establishing the commercial reason for the reduction rather than merely stating that the supplier “gave a discount.”
A significant price discrepancy can cause Customs to request additional information concerning the declared value.
The importer should respond with a coherent commercial file demonstrating how the price was negotiated and paid.
Important evidence may include the purchase agreement, commercial invoice, purchase order, payment records, bank transfer documents, supplier price lists, discount agreements, correspondence, accounting records, transport documents and evidence concerning previous transactions.
The objective is to demonstrate that the declared transaction genuinely occurred on the stated commercial terms.
If the invoice shows USD 50,000 and the importer can demonstrate that USD 50,000 was genuinely paid to the supplier under the relevant contract, this supports the authenticity of the transaction.
However, Customs may still examine whether additional direct or indirect payments were made.
The importer should investigate whether royalties, license fees, assists, commissions, subsequent payments or other amounts connected with the imported goods may require consideration under customs valuation rules.
A genuine invoice does not necessarily mean that no legally required valuation adjustment exists.
Where the Turkish importer and foreign supplier are related companies, Customs may examine whether the relationship influenced the price.
Internet prices alone still should not substitute for the proper valuation analysis, but the importer may need to provide stronger evidence supporting the transaction value.
A price accepted for corporate tax or transfer-pricing purposes does not automatically resolve customs valuation.
Multinational groups should analyze customs valuation independently and preserve documentation demonstrating the commercial basis of intercompany import prices.
The importer should obtain the formal reasoning behind the valuation decision.
Is Customs alleging an unreliable invoice? Undeclared payments? Related-party influence? A false document? Or simply that the price appears unusually low?
These are different legal and factual allegations and require different defenses.
If Customs relies on an online listing, the importer should identify exactly what was viewed.
Record the website content, product, model, date, currency, market, quantity and whether the amount includes taxes or other charges.
Internet pages can change or disappear quickly.
A price appearing online months or years after the importation may not reflect market conditions when the goods were imported.
Exchange rates, product generations and supply conditions may have changed significantly.
Online prices displayed in another currency should not be compared casually with the declared value.
The date and conversion methodology can materially affect the comparison.
A retail internet price may include domestic VAT or another local tax.
Comparing a tax-inclusive retail price directly with an import transaction value can produce a misleading result.
A website offering “free delivery” may have freight costs embedded in its retail price.
The importer should compare the applicable delivery terms and determine which cost elements are actually included in each price.
Even a manufacturer’s public price should be analyzed carefully.
The manufacturer may publish a recommended retail price while selling to distributors at substantially lower wholesale prices.
Obtain the manufacturer’s written explanation and supporting commercial records.
The supplier should explain its pricing structure, customer category, quantity discounts and commercial relationship with the Turkish importer.
Generic statements should be avoided. A detailed explanation supported by accounting or sales records is much stronger.
If the foreign supplier sold the same goods to unrelated distributors at similar prices during the relevant period, those transactions may provide useful evidence supporting the declared price.
The commercial conditions should still be compared carefully.
Marketplace listings can present additional reliability problems because sellers may be unrelated third parties, prices may be temporary and product authenticity may be uncertain.
The importer should investigate who the seller is and whether the listing genuinely concerns comparable goods.
Where transaction value is lawfully rejected, customs valuation does not become an unrestricted estimate.
The alternative valuation methods and their applicable sequence and requirements must be considered according to the customs valuation framework.
This is one of the most important legal arguments in an internet-price dispute.
Where valuation moves toward comparison with identical or similar goods, the importer should examine commercial level, quantity, timing, origin and other relevant characteristics.
A superficially similar internet product is not automatically an appropriate customs comparator.
The administration should not establish customs value through arbitrary or fictitious amounts.
If the methodology cannot be connected with the applicable valuation rules, this can become a central ground of objection.
The importer should request a clear breakdown showing how Customs moved from the disputed internet price to the assessed customs value.
Without understanding the calculation, it can be difficult to challenge the resulting duty effectively.
If Customs increases the customs value, additional customs duty and other import taxes calculated by reference to value may also increase.
The financial effect can therefore be much larger than the initial valuation difference.
An increased customs value may affect the import VAT base under the applicable rules.
The importer should calculate the entire financial exposure rather than examining customs duty alone.
Where Customs concludes that the declared value was incorrect, a separate administrative penalty may also arise depending on the circumstances and applicable provisions.
The additional tax assessment and penalty should be reviewed separately.
There is an important difference between a genuine valuation disagreement and deliberately presenting false invoices.
Where the transaction is authentic and fully documented, the importer should make that distinction clear.
If Customs believes invoices were fabricated, altered or accompanied by hidden payments, the matter can move beyond an ordinary valuation disagreement and potentially create more serious administrative or criminal exposure.
All documents submitted in the defense should therefore be genuine and verifiable.
Emails and messages may confirm negotiation of the lower price.
They may also reveal rebates, side payments or other facts that affect valuation.
The importer should understand the complete factual record before making categorical representations to Customs.
Determine what documents and pricing information were supplied to the customs broker before the declaration.
This may become relevant both to the customs defense and any later dispute over responsibility.
Potentially, yes.
Where Customs formally assesses additional duties or issues another appealable decision, the importer should identify the applicable customs objection procedure immediately.
Turkish customs disputes can involve short administrative objection periods. The notification date should therefore be recorded immediately.
Do not allow informal discussions concerning the internet comparison to consume the formal objection period.
A strong objection should explain why the transaction value is genuine, why the internet comparator is unreliable or materially different, and why the administration’s valuation methodology does not support the amount assessed.
Attach commercial and financial evidence rather than relying solely on legal arguments.
A practical defense can compare:
the imported product; the online product; model; specification; condition; quantity; commercial level; market; date; taxes; delivery terms; warranty; and included accessories.
This can expose why an apparently large price discrepancy is commercially explainable.
For machinery, industrial equipment, electronics or specialized products, an independent expert may explain technical differences that materially affect price.
This can be particularly useful where Customs assumes two products are identical based only on photographs or names.
If the same product has been imported repeatedly at similar declared values, Customs may expand its review to earlier declarations.
The company should therefore assess historical exposure immediately.
Record the declaration date, supplier, product, invoice value, quantity, tariff classification, payments, adjustments and any Customs valuation action.
This makes it easier to identify which historical transactions present genuine risk.
If the valuation dispute remains unresolved, identical goods already in transit may face the same problem.
Coordinate future documentation with the supplier before additional shipments arrive.
Recurring importers should maintain a valuation file explaining pricing structures, discounts, related-party arrangements and required additions to transaction value.
Preparing this before an inspection is substantially easier than reconstructing years of transactions during an audit.
When Turkish Customs uses internet prices to question imported goods, the importer should immediately obtain the formal valuation reasoning, preserve the online evidence relied upon by Customs, verify the exact product and date, distinguish wholesale from retail pricing, document discounts and commercial conditions, prove actual payments, review possible valuation additions, examine related-party issues, demand a transparent calculation, protect the customs objection deadline and assess whether earlier and future declarations face the same exposure.
Publicly available pricing information may be examined as part of customs control. The critical question is how that information is used within the legally applicable customs valuation methodology.
A higher online price should not automatically become the customs value merely because it exists. The legal requirements governing rejection of transaction value and alternative valuation methods must be considered.
This can be a major comparability problem. Retail prices may include margins, taxes and other costs absent from wholesale import transactions.
Document the quantity, supplier pricing policy, contract and commercial correspondence demonstrating the discount.
It is important evidence, but Customs may still examine legally relevant additions, related-party influence or other payments connected with the goods.
The relationship can lead to closer valuation scrutiny. The importer should be prepared to demonstrate that the declared price is acceptable under the applicable customs valuation framework.
It may examine that information, but the company should determine whether the displayed amount is a retail, recommended or other price rather than the actual wholesale export price.
Potentially. The customs debt and any administrative penalty should be analyzed independently according to their respective legal requirements.
The issue becomes substantially more serious. Genuine payment, accounting and contractual evidence should be preserved immediately, and potential administrative and criminal consequences should be assessed.
Demonstrate the genuine transaction with contracts, payments and accounting records, then show precisely why the internet comparator differs in product, quantity, commercial level, market, date, taxes or other material characteristics. The dispute should ultimately be resolved through the applicable customs valuation methodology, not through an arbitrary online price comparison.
Customs valuation disputes can result in additional customs duties, increased import VAT, administrative penalties, post-clearance audits and, in serious false-document cases, potential criminal investigations. Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign manufacturers, international exporters and Turkish importers in disputes concerning transaction value, related-party pricing, royalties, assists, internet-price comparisons and post-clearance valuation assessments. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in preparing customs objections, organizing commercial and accounting evidence, challenging improper valuation methodologies 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