

A foreign investor faces customs penalties, seizure of imported goods and a criminal investigation in Turkey. Learn how to coordinate customs objections, release requests, evidence preservation and criminal defense.
A customs dispute in Turkey can become considerably more serious when three proceedings develop at the same time: an administrative customs penalty, seizure or detention of goods, and a criminal investigation concerning suspected smuggling or another customs-related offence. Foreign investors frequently make the mistake of treating these as a single case. In practice, each measure may have a different legal basis, competent authority, evidentiary standard, deadline and remedy. A statement made to solve the customs assessment may also affect the criminal file. For that reason, the defense should be coordinated from the first day.
A customs declaration can raise several separate questions. Customs authorities may believe additional duties are payable, an administrative penalty may be imposed, goods may be detained or seized, and facts considered potentially criminal may be referred to the public prosecutor.
The existence of one proceeding does not automatically determine the outcome of the others.
The company should create separate files for:
Customs debt and additional assessment: Whether additional customs duties or other import charges are payable.
Administrative penalty: Whether the circumstances satisfy the statutory requirements for a customs penalty.
Goods seizure or detention: Whether continued control over the goods is legally justified.
Criminal investigation: Whether the alleged conduct satisfies the elements of a criminal offence.
This separation is one of the most important parts of an effective defense.
The foreign investor should immediately collect the customs declaration, inspection records, additional assessment, penalty decision, seizure or detention records, laboratory or expert reports, correspondence with the customs broker and any prosecutor or law-enforcement documents.
Notification dates should be recorded separately.
Turkish customs disputes can involve short procedural periods. Where the general objection procedure under the Customs Law applies, the company should determine the relevant deadline immediately after notification.
Criminal proceedings should not cause the company to overlook its separate customs remedies.
The fact that a prosecutor is investigating the transaction does not by itself establish that Customs correctly determined classification, value, origin or another customs issue.
The underlying technical customs question should still be examined independently.
Administrative non-compliance and criminal liability are not interchangeable. Incorrect classification, documentation mistakes or additional duty exposure should not automatically be characterized as intentional smuggling.
Criminal responsibility requires analysis under the relevant criminal and anti-smuggling provisions.
Possible triggers include allegations concerning false documents, concealed goods, incorrect origin, deliberate undervaluation, undeclared goods, prohibited or restricted products or conduct allegedly intended to avoid customs controls.
The defense should identify the precise allegation rather than respond broadly to an undefined accusation of “customs fraud.”
The company, manager, employee, customs broker, driver, importer or another person may have different roles.
Individual criminal liability should be examined according to each person’s conduct and knowledge. A managerial title alone should not replace an analysis of actual involvement.
A foreign company manager summoned by police, customs enforcement or a prosecutor should determine in what capacity they are being questioned and obtain legal assistance before making substantive statements.
They should not speculate about transactions handled by departments or employees whose actions they did not personally supervise.
A foreign person who cannot adequately understand Turkish should request appropriate interpretation during criminal proceedings. Understanding the questions and accurately recording the answers is essential in a customs investigation involving complex technical terminology.
If the manager does not know why a tariff code was selected, who prepared a certificate or how customs value was calculated, they should not invent an explanation.
Those questions can later be answered through records and responsible personnel.
Once an investigation begins, preserve relevant emails, contracts, invoices, compliance files, customs broker communications, ERP records, shipping documents and internal approvals.
Deleting or altering records can create substantially greater problems.
Companies with automatic email deletion or document-retention policies should consider appropriate preservation measures for material relevant to the investigation.
If the dispute concerns tariff classification, collect technical specifications, catalogues, drawings, product composition and manufacturer information.
A genuine classification dispute should be distinguished from deliberate misdescription of goods.
If undervaluation is alleged, examine invoices, purchase contracts, payment records, royalties, assists, commissions, related-party relationships and subsequent payments.
The commercial payment trail should be reconciled with the declared customs value.
Origin allegations can become particularly serious where duties, anti-dumping measures or other restrictions depend on origin.
Prepare manufacturing records, bills of materials, certificates, supplier evidence and transport documents supporting the genuine production history.
A technically incorrect origin determination does not automatically establish deliberate falsification.
The criminal file should distinguish legal disagreement over origin rules from intentional creation or use of false documentation.
Determine what information the importer provided to the customs broker and what decisions the broker made.
Obtain emails, classification instructions, invoices, technical documents and previous declarations.
Using a customs broker does not mean that the importer can ignore the accuracy of its customs information. However, the broker’s conduct and information available to each party can be highly relevant to responsibility.
Where commercially valuable goods are seized or detained, the company should identify the legal basis and authority responsible for the measure.
A request concerning release of the goods may require a different procedural strategy from the customs penalty objection.
Take photographs and preserve inventory, serial numbers, quantity, packaging and condition records where legally possible.
This is especially important for perishable, high-value or technically sensitive goods.
Warehouse, terminal, container, refrigeration and demurrage charges can continue while the legal dispute develops.
Maintain a daily cost record and pursue commercially reasonable mitigation measures.
Where detained goods can deteriorate, the legal strategy should account for remaining shelf life and storage requirements.
A successful challenge months later may provide little commercial value if the goods have already become unusable.
Potentially, depending on the legal basis for seizure, evidentiary requirements and procedural stage. The company should evaluate whether continued possession of the physical goods is necessary and whether an available legal mechanism permits release.
If testing, destruction or disposal is possible, evidence preservation becomes particularly important.
Relevant samples, photographs, expert reports and inspection records should be secured through legally available procedures.
The company’s explanation of the transaction should remain factually consistent across customs and criminal proceedings.
This does not mean that identical submissions should mechanically be filed everywhere. Different legal questions require different arguments.
A company may wish to resolve an administrative customs issue quickly by accepting an error. Before doing so, consider whether the wording of that acceptance could be interpreted differently in the criminal investigation.
Administrative strategy should therefore be coordinated with criminal defense.
If the company discovers additional errors in other declarations, it should assess available corrective mechanisms promptly.
However, corrections should be made through the appropriate legal procedure and coordinated with the existing investigation.
Authorities may examine earlier declarations involving the same product, supplier or customs practice.
Create a declaration-by-declaration matrix showing date, product, tariff code, origin, value, supplier, broker and customs treatment.
Product specifications, suppliers, manufacturing countries and contractual arrangements can change over time.
Each declaration should be reviewed according to its own facts.
If identical products are heading toward Turkey, investigate them before arrival.
Continuing the same declaration practice while authorities are challenging it can substantially increase exposure.
Classification, origin, valuation and product-compliance disputes can involve specialized technical questions.
Engineers, accountants, customs specialists or other experts may help distinguish a technical mistake from alleged deliberate misconduct.
Where authorities allege deliberate undervaluation or concealed payments, bank records and accounting information may show the actual commercial structure.
Payment flows should be mapped carefully.
Imports from a foreign parent, subsidiary or sister company can raise valuation and transfer-pricing questions.
Prepare intercompany agreements, transfer-pricing documentation and evidence explaining the commercial relationship.
If company computers, phones or records are seized during a criminal investigation, preserve copies of relevant legal documents concerning the measure and identify the devices and data taken.
Questions concerning access, examination and return should be handled within the applicable criminal procedure.
Serious customs or smuggling investigations can create wider financial consequences depending on the allegations and measures ordered.
Companies should maintain accurate records showing legitimate business transactions and sources of funds.
A foreign shareholder, director or manager should not automatically be treated as personally responsible simply because of their position.
Actual authority, involvement, knowledge and conduct should be examined individually.
When a multinational group learns of a Turkish investigation, internal communications can quickly become inconsistent.
Establish a small response team and a reliable factual chronology before making external statements.
Determine who ordered the goods, who selected the supplier, who classified them, who prepared the documents, what the broker received and who approved the declaration.
The purpose is to understand the facts accurately before authorities ask the same questions.
Internal investigation notes should not be used to rewrite historical documents. Original records must remain intact.
A foreign supplier may have provided an incorrect invoice, origin certificate, product description or technical document.
Preserve contractual claims against the supplier while defending the public-law proceedings in Turkey.
If supplier information appears inaccurate, timely notice may be important under the supply contract.
Request supporting production, pricing and origin records immediately.
Depending on the circumstances and policy wording, relevant insurance coverage should be reviewed. Notification periods may apply.
Any possibility of resolving a customs assessment administratively should not be assumed to terminate a criminal investigation automatically.
Each proceeding requires its own legal analysis.
Cancellation of the underlying customs assessment can be highly relevant, but its effect on a criminal investigation depends on the alleged offence and reasons for cancellation.
The criminal file should be updated with favorable administrative or judicial developments.
A decision not to prosecute does not necessarily eliminate every customs debt or administrative dispute.
The company should continue pursuing the appropriate remedies in each proceeding.
If goods were unlawfully detained, seized or subjected to an unlawful administrative action, potential compensation should be evaluated separately.
Recovery is not automatic. The company should preserve evidence of direct losses, storage expenses and causation.
Cancelled customer orders or production losses should be documented with contracts, correspondence and financial evidence.
General estimates of lost business are significantly weaker than transaction-specific evidence.
A foreign investor facing simultaneous customs penalties, seizure and criminal investigation should immediately:
No. Administrative customs liability and criminal liability involve separate legal analyses.
Potentially, where authorities believe the facts may involve criminal conduct under the applicable legislation.
Yes, depending on the investigation. Their individual role, authority, knowledge and conduct should be examined carefully.
They should not speculate. Technical matters can often be established through company records and responsible personnel.
Potentially, depending on the legal basis of the seizure or detention. Release should be evaluated separately.
Potentially. The legal basis and procedural remedy for each notified decision should be examined.
No. However, the broker’s role, instructions and information can be important when responsibility is disputed.
Potentially, but a customs error should not automatically be equated with intentional criminal conduct. The specific statutory elements and evidence must be examined.
Yes. Once authorities question a recurring customs practice, earlier imports involving the same issue may receive additional scrutiny.
Do not treat the customs assessment, administrative penalty, goods seizure and criminal investigation as one proceeding. Protect the deadlines and defenses in each file while ensuring that factual positions remain coordinated across all proceedings.
Cases involving simultaneous customs assessments, administrative penalties, seizure of imported goods, smuggling allegations, prosecutor investigations and foreign company managers require coordinated customs and criminal defense. Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign investors, multinational companies, exporters and Turkish importers facing complex customs enforcement proceedings in Turkey. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in customs objections, seizure and release proceedings, criminal investigations, evidence strategy, historical customs reviews and disputes involving foreign suppliers and customs brokers.
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