Goods Seized at Turkish Customs: How Foreign Companies Can Seek Release in 2026

Goods seized at Turkish customs during a criminal investigation? Learn how foreign companies can request release, challenge continued seizure, prove ownership, distinguish seizure from confiscation, protect commercial goods and pursue compensation or sale proceeds in Turkey in 2026.

For a foreign company, seizure of imported goods at Turkish customs can create two simultaneous emergencies: a criminal investigation and a commercial supply-chain crisis.

Containers may remain unavailable, machinery may not reach a factory, raw materials may stop production, perishable goods may lose value and contractual delivery deadlines may be missed. Meanwhile, the foreign company may not even be the suspect in the criminal investigation.

The most important point is that seizure is not automatically the same as final confiscation.

Under Article 131 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code, seized property belonging to a suspect, defendant or third party can be returned where keeping it is no longer necessary for the investigation or prosecution, or where it becomes clear that the property will not be subject to confiscation. Return can be ordered ex officio or following an application, and a decision rejecting a request for return can be challenged.

Customs-smuggling investigations, however, require additional analysis under Law No. 5607 on Combating Smuggling. Special rules can apply to goods seized as the alleged subject of a smuggling offence, including rules concerning storage, liquidation and the consequences of a later return decision. The Constitutional Court has confirmed that these rules directly interfere with property rights and therefore must be assessed within the applicable statutory and proportionality framework.

For a foreign company, the practical strategy should therefore be:

Identify the seizure → Establish ownership → Determine the alleged offence → Determine why the goods are still needed → Challenge the connection with the offence where appropriate → Request release from the competent authority → Challenge a refusal → Protect against liquidation → Preserve compensation and contractual claims.

First Question: Were the Goods Actually Seized?

Do not assume that every shipment stopped at customs is subject to criminal seizure.

Goods may be:

• Awaiting ordinary customs clearance
• Held for document review
• Subject to product-safety controls
• Awaiting laboratory analysis
• Detained because of missing authorization
• Under administrative customs procedures
• Formally seized as evidence
• Seized as alleged offence-related property
• Subject to a liquidation process

These legal situations are different.

The foreign company should obtain the relevant written records and identify the precise legal basis for the restriction.

Customs Detention Is Not the Same as Criminal Seizure

This distinction matters because the available remedies depend on the legal measure.

A product-safety problem may require regulatory compliance.

A customs-value dispute may require a customs objection.

A formal criminal seizure may require an application to the prosecutor, judge or court.

A smuggling investigation may additionally engage the special provisions of Law No. 5607.

Before requesting “release,” determine what legal measure must actually be lifted.

Obtain the Seizure Record

The company should obtain and review available documents showing:

• Date of seizure
• Customs office
• Investigation number
• Prosecutor’s office
• Description of goods
• Quantity
• Weight
• Container information
• Serial numbers
• Estimated value
• Alleged offence
• Person from whom the goods were taken
• Storage location

Compare the official inventory with the actual shipment.

Verify the Quantity Immediately

Suppose the company imported 4,000 units but the seizure record lists 4,500.

That discrepancy should be addressed early.

Preserve:

• Packing list
• Container loading records
• Commercial invoice
• Transport records
• Weight certificates
• Photographs
• Warehouse documentation

The seized property should be identifiable.

Who Owns the Seized Goods?

Ownership is one of the first questions in a release application.

The claimant might be:

• Turkish importer
• Foreign seller
• Foreign parent company
• Financing bank
• Leasing company
• Logistics company
• Another third party

Do not assume the customs declaration conclusively determines private ownership.

Review the underlying transaction.

Documents That Can Establish Ownership

Potential evidence includes:

• Sale agreement
• Commercial invoice
• Purchase order
• Bank payment
• Bill of lading
• Insurance certificate
• Delivery terms
• Financing documents
• Title documents
• Accounting records

Where ownership has not yet transferred under the commercial arrangement, the foreign seller may have a materially different position from the Turkish importer.

Third-Party Ownership Can Be Important

Article 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code expressly refers not only to property belonging to suspects and defendants but also to property belonging to third persons.

This can be highly important where:

Foreign company owns goods → Turkish distributor imports goods → Distributor becomes criminal suspect.

The foreign owner should not automatically be treated as criminally responsible merely because its property appears in the suspect’s shipment.

Example: Foreign Manufacturer and Turkish Distributor

Assume a German manufacturer sends industrial equipment worth €1.8 million to its Turkish distributor.

Customs authorities allege that the distributor used false import documentation.

The foreign manufacturer:

• Did not prepare the declaration.
• Did not instruct the customs broker.
• Did not create the disputed document.
• Retained ownership under the contract.

The manufacturer should consider establishing its ownership and explaining its lack of involvement rather than simply waiting for the distributor’s criminal proceedings to finish.

Article 131: The Core Return Mechanism

Article 131 provides an important general mechanism for return of seized property.

Property can be returned where:

It is no longer necessary to preserve it for the investigation or prosecution

or

It becomes clear that it will not be subject to confiscation.

The decision can be made by the public prosecutor, judge or court depending on the procedural stage. A refusal of the request for return can be challenged.

This means a foreign company does not necessarily need to remain completely passive until the criminal case ends.

What Should a Release Application Argue?

A strong application should not merely say:

“These goods belong to us. Please return them.”

It should address the legal reason for continued seizure.

For example:

Ownership: The applicant owns the goods.

Evidence: All necessary samples, photographs, expert findings or documentary records have already been secured.

No criminal connection: The applicant did not participate in the alleged offence.

No confiscation basis: The particular goods should not ultimately be subject to confiscation.

Commercial harm: Continued seizure is causing substantial deterioration, storage expense or production losses.

Proportionality: Continued physical retention is no longer necessary to achieve the evidentiary purpose.

The relevance of each argument depends on the case.

Can Goods Be Released While the Criminal Investigation Continues?

Potentially, yes.

Article 131 itself demonstrates that return of seized property is not necessarily dependent on termination of the entire criminal case. The key issues include whether continued preservation is still necessary and whether the property is expected to be subject to confiscation.

However, special anti-smuggling provisions can materially affect this analysis.

Law No. 5607 Requires Special Attention

Where goods are seized because they are alleged to be the subject of an offence under Law No. 5607, the special rules governing seized goods must be reviewed alongside the Criminal Procedure Code.

This is important because anti-smuggling legislation contains specific mechanisms concerning the custody and liquidation of seized goods.

A generic Criminal Procedure Code application should therefore not be prepared without first identifying whether the special anti-smuggling regime applies.

Seizure Is Not Confiscation

These concepts should remain separate throughout the case.

Seizure is generally a temporary procedural measure.

Confiscation concerns permanent deprivation where the applicable statutory conditions are ultimately satisfied.

A foreign company’s shipment can therefore remain seized during an investigation even though no final confiscation judgment exists.

Conversely, obtaining release requires more than simply pointing out that no conviction has yet occurred.

Seizure Does Not Prove Smuggling

A seizure decision does not automatically establish:

• False declaration
• Criminal intent
• Importer’s guilt
• Director’s guilt
• Foreign supplier’s participation
• Ultimate confiscation

The criminal investigation must still determine what happened.

Why Does the Prosecutor Still Need the Goods?

This can become one of the most important questions in a release request.

Authorities may initially require physical goods for:

• Identification
• Sampling
• Laboratory examination
• Valuation
• Classification
• Origin examination
• Comparison with customs documents
• Expert examination

But the evidentiary need can change over time.

If necessary examinations have been completed, the company may argue that continued physical retention is no longer justified, depending on the nature of the alleged offence and any applicable special statutory restrictions.

Can Samples Replace the Entire Shipment?

In some cases, preservation of samples and detailed identification may reduce the need to retain the entire commercial shipment.

Law No. 5607 itself contains provisions contemplating sampling or detailed identification in connection with liquidation procedures for seized goods. The statutory framework recognizes that certain seized goods may be dealt with before the final criminal outcome rather than physically stored indefinitely.

Whether this supports release in a particular case depends on the goods and the alleged offence.

Perishable Goods Require Immediate Action

Delay can destroy the economic value of:

• Food
• Agricultural products
• Chemicals
• Pharmaceuticals
• Temperature-sensitive goods
• Products with short shelf lives

The company should immediately document:

Expiry date → Storage requirements → Daily deterioration → Market value → Consequences of delay.

Do not wait several months before first telling the authorities that the goods are perishable.

Machinery Can Also Lose Value

Industrial machinery may not physically perish, but continued seizure can still cause serious commercial harm.

Examples include:

• Production line cannot start.
• Factory remains idle.
• Installation deadline expires.
• Financing costs continue.
• Customer penalties accumulate.
• Warranty periods run.

Document these consequences.

Storage Costs

Determine who is bearing:

• Warehouse fees
• Port charges
• Container costs
• Handling expenses
• Insurance costs
• Preservation expenses

Maintain all invoices.

Even where the immediate objective is release, these records may later become relevant to damages or contractual claims.

Goods May Be Liquidated Before the Criminal Case Ends

This is one of the most important risks foreign companies often overlook.

Law No. 5607 contains special provisions allowing certain seized goods to be liquidated during the investigation or prosecution process under statutory conditions rather than being physically preserved until the final judgment.

Therefore, do not assume:

“The goods will stay in the warehouse until the trial is over.”

Determine immediately whether a liquidation procedure has begun or may begin.

What Does Liquidation Mean?

Depending on the applicable statutory regime and nature of the goods, liquidation may involve disposition of the goods rather than their continued physical storage.

The legal consequences must be examined separately from confiscation.

A company should determine:

• Whether a liquidation decision exists
• Who issued it
• Whether the goods have already been sold
• Whether samples were retained
• Whether sale proceeds are being held
• What remedy remains available

What If the Goods Have Already Been Sold?

Physical return may no longer be possible.

Law No. 5607 provides that where goods or vehicles have been liquidated through sale and it is subsequently decided that they should be returned to their owner, the sale price is paid to the entitled person with statutory interest calculated under the applicable framework.

This is why the company should not abandon the case merely because the goods have already been liquidated.

The claim may shift from:

Return the goods

to

Return the legally payable value or sale proceeds under the statutory mechanism.

What If the Goods Were Destroyed?

The same statutory framework addresses circumstances where seized property has been destroyed. The provisions cited by the Constitutional Court contemplate payment of the value where the goods should ultimately have been returned but physical return has become impossible because of destruction.

The precise amount and procedure should be assessed from the applicable file and current legislation.

Return Does Not Automatically Mean Immediate Free Circulation

This is another critical distinction.

Law No. 5607 provides that where return of seized goods is ordered, implementation remains subject to the customs and foreign-trade legislation in force.

Therefore:

Criminal release ≠ automatic customs clearance.

The company may still need to resolve:

• Customs duties
• Import authorization
• Product-safety requirements
• Technical regulations
• Origin requirements
• Trade-policy measures

A successful criminal release application may only solve one part of the problem.

Example: Criminal Seizure Ends but Import Permit Is Missing

Suppose prosecutors conclude that the foreign company did not participate in smuggling and the goods can be returned.

But the goods require an import authorization that was never obtained.

The release decision does not necessarily allow the company simply to remove the shipment from customs.

The applicable customs and foreign-trade requirements still need to be addressed.

What If the Goods Cannot Legally Be Imported?

The company should consider whether another lawful solution is available, such as return to origin, where permitted by the applicable customs and trade regime.

Do not assume criminal release automatically creates a right to domestic circulation.

Challenge the Connection Between the Goods and the Alleged Crime

Suppose investigators allege false documentation involving only 100 units in a container holding 5,000 independently documented products.

The company should examine whether continued seizure of the entire shipment is legally and factually justified.

Identify:

• Which goods are allegedly connected
• Which documents relate to each item
• Whether goods can be segregated
• Whether lawful goods can be separately identified

The objective is to prevent the investigation from treating an entire shipment as one indivisible object without examining the actual evidence.

Mixed Shipments

Mixed containers can create particularly difficult cases.

For example:

Container A

• 3,000 properly declared products
• 200 disputed products
• 50 allegedly undeclared products

The company should create a product-level schedule showing:

Product → Quantity → Invoice → Classification → Origin → Declaration → Allegation.

This may help support a request concerning the undisputed portion.

Foreign Supplier as an Innocent Third Party

Where a foreign supplier retains ownership and had no role in the alleged customs violation, that status should be documented.

Evidence may include:

• Sale agreement
• Retention-of-title clause
• Shipping documents
• Payment terms
• Emails
• Customs instructions
• Evidence identifying who prepared the declaration

Do not rely only on a general statement that the supplier was “innocent.”

Prove the commercial structure.

Financing Bank or Leasing Company

Goods may belong to a financing or leasing entity rather than the suspect importer.

Third-party ownership can materially affect the analysis.

Obtain:

• Financing agreement
• Leasing agreement
• Ownership documentation
• Payment evidence
• Registration records where relevant

Challenge a Refusal of Return

Article 131 expressly provides that a refusal of an application for return can be challenged.

This means a company receiving a rejection should examine:

• Which authority issued it
• Reason given
• Procedural stage
• Applicable challenge mechanism
• Deadline
• Whether circumstances have changed since the original request

A rejection should not automatically be treated as the end of the issue.

Renewed Applications May Become Relevant

The evidentiary situation can change.

For example:

Month 1: Goods needed for laboratory testing.

Month 3: Testing completed.

Month 5: Expert report filed.

The justification for continued physical seizure may therefore need reassessment.

Whether a renewed application is appropriate depends on the procedural posture and previous decisions.

Proportionality Matters

Seizure interferes with property rights.

The Constitutional Court has emphasized that measures concerning seized property must be assessed under property-right and proportionality principles.

A company can therefore document why continued retention creates an excessive burden relative to the remaining evidentiary need.

Relevant factors may include:

• Duration
• Value
• Deterioration
• Storage cost
• Business interruption
• Availability of samples
• Completion of expert examination
• Third-party ownership

Long Delays Can Raise Property-Rights Issues

The Constitutional Court has found a property-rights violation in a case where property remained effectively withheld for an unreasonable period even after authorities had determined that it should be returned. The Court stressed the authorities’ duty to act with appropriate speed and care in implementing return.

This does not mean every delay automatically violates constitutional rights.

It does show that a return order should not be treated as meaningless merely because administrative implementation is slow.

Preserve Evidence of Commercial Loss

From the first day, maintain a loss file containing:

• Storage invoices
• Demurrage
• Customer penalties
• Cancelled orders
• Production interruption
• Financing expenses
• Deterioration reports
• Market-value changes
• Disposal costs

Whether these losses are ultimately recoverable depends on the legal basis and facts, but they are difficult to reconstruct years later if no records were kept.

Criminal Release and Compensation Are Different Questions

The immediate objective may be:

Release the goods.

A later question may be:

Who pays for the loss caused by the seizure?

Do not confuse them.

Potential compensation issues require separate analysis concerning the legality of the measure, conduct of public authorities, procedural history and applicable remedies.

Claims Against the Supplier May Also Exist

Suppose seizure occurred because the foreign supplier:

• Sent undeclared additional goods
• Used false origin documentation
• Provided incorrect invoices
• Shipped prohibited goods
• Misdescribed products

The Turkish importer may have contractual claims against the supplier even while defending the criminal investigation.

Review:

• Representations and warranties
• Indemnification
• Product-description clauses
• Customs obligations
• Governing law
• Dispute-resolution clause

Claims Against the Customs Broker

Likewise, if a customs broker independently entered incorrect information contrary to the documents provided by the importer, contractual or professional-liability issues may arise.

Preserve:

• Instructions
• Emails
• Draft declarations
• Final declaration
• Broker invoices
• Authorization documents

Do not automatically blame the broker without evidence.

Do Not Alter Documents to Obtain Release

Never:

• Create a new invoice and pretend it was original
• Backdate a contract
• Modify packing lists
• Alter origin documents
• Delete supplier messages
• Manufacture an authorization
• Coordinate false statements

A questionable customs case can become much more serious if evidence is fabricated.

Preserve Foreign-Language Originals

Foreign companies frequently hold evidence in English, German, Chinese, Arabic, Russian or other languages.

Preserve the original file.

Provide translations where procedurally necessary, but do not discard the source document.

Company Managers May Need Separate Representation

Where both the company and individual executives are involved, interests may diverge.

For example:

Company: “The import manager acted without authorization.”

Import manager: “Senior management instructed me.”

This creates an obvious conflict.

Corporate and individual defense strategies should therefore be evaluated separately where necessary.

Release Strategy for Goods Owned by an Innocent Foreign Company

A particularly strong application may be structured around five evidentiary chains:

1. Ownership Chain

Who legally owns the goods?

2. Import Chain

Who ordered, shipped, declared and cleared them?

3. Criminal Connection

What exactly connects the goods to the alleged offence?

4. Evidentiary Necessity

Why must the physical goods still remain seized?

5. Confiscation Risk

What legal basis is alleged for permanent confiscation?

This structure forces the case away from general suspicion and toward specific legal questions.

2026 Legal Position

As of 2026, the fundamental distinction remains between temporary seizure and final confiscation.

Article 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides a mechanism for returning seized property where continued preservation is unnecessary or confiscation will not apply, including property belonging to third parties. A refusal can be challenged.

For smuggling investigations, Law No. 5607 adds special rules concerning seized goods, including liquidation and the consequences of a later decision requiring return. Where return is ordered, implementation remains subject to customs and foreign-trade legislation.

Accordingly, foreign companies should avoid waiting passively for the entire criminal proceeding to finish before analyzing whether a release application is legally available.

25 Immediate Steps After Goods Are Seized at Turkish Customs

1. Obtain the seizure record.
2. Identify the criminal investigation number.
3. Identify the prosecutor’s office.
4. Determine the exact alleged offence.
5. Determine whether Law No. 5607 applies.
6. Verify the goods and quantities seized.
7. Establish ownership.
8. Preserve the commercial invoice.
9. Preserve the purchase agreement.
10. Preserve payment records.
11. Preserve transport documents.
12. Preserve customs declarations.
13. Preserve customs-broker communications.
14. Preserve supplier communications.
15. Determine why physical goods remain necessary as evidence.
16. Check whether sampling or expert examination has been completed.
17. Determine whether liquidation proceedings have started.
18. Document perishability or depreciation.
19. Document storage and commercial losses.
20. Identify innocent third-party ownership rights.
21. Evaluate an Article 131 return application.
22. Challenge an adverse decision where legally available.
23. Address remaining customs and foreign-trade requirements.
24. Evaluate contractual claims against responsible suppliers or brokers.
25. Coordinate criminal, customs and commercial strategy immediately.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a foreign company request the return of goods seized in a Turkish criminal investigation?

Potentially, yes. Article 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows return of seized property where continued preservation is unnecessary or it becomes clear that confiscation will not apply. The provision also covers property belonging to third parties.

2. Does the company have to wait until the criminal trial ends?

Not necessarily. Article 131 permits return during the relevant proceedings where its conditions are satisfied. Special provisions under Law No. 5607 must also be considered in customs-smuggling cases.

3. Can a rejection of the release request be challenged?

Yes. Article 131 expressly provides that a decision rejecting a request for return may be challenged.

4. Are seized goods automatically confiscated?

No. Seizure is not equivalent to final confiscation. The legal basis for continued seizure and any eventual confiscation must be examined separately.

5. What if the foreign company owns the goods but the Turkish importer is under investigation?

Third-party ownership can be highly important. The foreign company should document ownership, the commercial transaction, its role in the import and its relationship—or lack of relationship—with the alleged criminal conduct.

6. What if the goods have already been sold by the authorities?

Law No. 5607 contains a mechanism under which, where liquidated goods should later be returned to their owner, the sale value is paid to the entitled person together with statutory interest under the applicable framework.

7. Does a release order mean the company can immediately import and sell the goods in Turkey?

Not necessarily. Law No. 5607 provides that implementation of a return decision remains subject to applicable customs and foreign-trade legislation.

8. Can perishable goods be treated differently?

Their deterioration risk can make rapid action especially important. Law No. 5607 contains special liquidation rules for seized goods under specified circumstances, so the company should immediately determine whether sampling, identification, liquidation or another measure is contemplated.

9. What if only part of the shipment is disputed?

The company should identify the goods individually and examine whether undisputed goods can be separated from the allegedly offence-related items. Product-level invoices, packing lists, serial numbers and customs records can be important.

10. What is the most important evidence for obtaining release?

A strong application normally combines ownership evidence, shipment documentation, customs records, the precise alleged criminal connection, evidence that necessary examinations have been completed and a clear explanation of why continued physical seizure is unnecessary or disproportionate.

Legal Assistance for Release of Goods Seized at Turkish Customs

Seizure of commercial goods can cause substantial losses long before a criminal investigation reaches a final decision. Foreign companies should therefore examine immediately whether the goods must genuinely remain in physical custody, whether third-party ownership exists, whether liquidation is approaching and whether an application for return can be made.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign importers, exporters, manufacturers, investors and multinational companies whose goods have been seized during customs and criminal investigations in Turkey.

Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya assists foreign clients with applications for release of seized goods, customs-smuggling investigations, third-party ownership claims, challenges to continued seizure, liquidation issues, customs documentation disputes, supplier and customs-broker problems, criminal defense and related commercial recovery strategies.

Early intervention can be especially important where goods are perishable, rapidly depreciating, essential to factory production or potentially subject to liquidation before the criminal investigation is completed.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

This publication is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Release of goods seized at customs depends on the precise seizure measure, alleged offence, ownership, evidentiary necessity, confiscation risk, procedural stage and customs and foreign-trade rules applicable to the shipment.