

Is your shipment stuck at Turkish customs because of a TAREKS or product safety inspection? Learn when importers can challenge excessive inspection delays, how to respond to document and testing requests, and what legal remedies may be available for storage, demurrage and commercial losses.
A shipment arriving at a Turkish port may clear ordinary customs procedures quickly but remain blocked because a product safety, technical regulation, conformity or TAREKS inspection has not been completed. For importers, the commercial consequences can be severe. Containers may accumulate demurrage and storage charges, production lines may run short of critical components, seasonal products may lose their market value, contractual delivery deadlines may be missed and customers may impose penalties. In 2026, Turkey continues to operate extensive import-stage product safety controls under annual Product Safety and Inspection Communiqués. The Ministry of Trade states that the fundamental objective of these controls is to verify that imported products satisfy minimum safety requirements relating to matters such as human health, life and property, the environment and consumer protection. TAREKS is the risk-based electronic system used for many import and export controls, allowing higher-risk products to be selected for inspection rather than physically inspecting every shipment. (https://ticaret.gov.tr) The difficult legal question arises when a legitimate inspection stops functioning as an ordinary regulatory control and instead leaves the importer waiting for an excessive period without a clear procedural reason. An importer cannot demand release merely because an inspection is commercially inconvenient, but unexplained or disproportionate administrative delay may potentially be challenged depending on the applicable communiqué, inspection stage, authority responsible and circumstances of the case.
Turkey conducts product safety inspections before certain imported products are released into the domestic market.
The system is designed to prevent unsafe or technically non-compliant products from entering Turkey.
The Ministry’s 2026 framework covers numerous product categories through separate Product Safety and Inspection Communiqués. The 2026 communiqués were published at the end of 2025 and their implementation guides were subsequently made available by the Ministry. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
Therefore, the first question in a delayed shipment case is not simply:
“Why is customs holding my goods?”
The more useful question is:
“Which product-safety regime applies, which authority is conducting the inspection, and what procedural stage is causing the delay?”
TAREKS is Turkey’s Risk-Based Trade Control System.
It is a web-based system through which many import and export inspections concerning product safety, technical legislation, standards and quality are conducted electronically.
The Ministry explains that TAREKS uses risk criteria so that physical inspections can be concentrated on products identified as presenting greater risk. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
This means not every shipment follows exactly the same route.
One shipment may proceed rapidly.
Another shipment containing apparently similar goods may be selected for documentary or physical inspection.
This is important.
A TAREKS referral for inspection should not automatically be interpreted as a finding of non-compliance.
The inspection process exists precisely to determine compliance.
The answer depends on the applicable 2026 communiqué.
The Ministry’s current product groups include industrial inputs subject to standards controls, machinery, toys, personal protective equipment, consumer products, vehicles and various products requiring CE-related conformity checks. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
Different authorities and inspection procedures can apply to different product groups.
Certain electrical and electronic products, lifts, pressure equipment, gas appliances and other products requiring CE marking can be inspected at importation for compliance with the relevant technical legislation.
For products covered by the 2026/9 Communiqué, the Ministry states that the inspection procedures are determined by the Ministry and inspections are conducted through the Turkish Standards Institution.
Machinery is another important category.
The 2026 framework introduced a dedicated Machinery Import Inspection Communiqué numbered 2026/32, covering specified GTIPs and incorporating inspection mechanisms connected with machinery safety requirements. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
For companies importing production equipment, machinery inspection delays can be particularly damaging because the commercial loss may extend far beyond storage charges.
Gloves, protective eyewear, protective clothing, footwear, gas masks and similar products can be inspected against the applicable PPE legislation.
Toy imports can be inspected for compliance with the Toy Safety Regulation.
Certain stationery products, accessories, watches, swimming products, disinfectants and other consumer goods can also be subject to import-stage controls concerning chemicals, standards and other regulatory requirements. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
There is no single reason.
The importer should determine the actual cause before deciding whether administrative or judicial action is appropriate.
A frequent cause is incomplete documentation.
The inspection authority may require documents demonstrating conformity with the applicable technical legislation.
Depending on the product, these can include declarations of conformity, test reports, certificates, technical files or other supporting documents.
A declaration may exist but contain incorrect or incomplete information.
Common issues include:
incorrect manufacturer;
wrong model;
missing technical legislation;
incorrect standard references;
missing signature;
or inconsistency between the declaration and the imported goods.
The commercial invoice may describe Model ABC-100 while the test report concerns ABC-100A.
Even a minor difference can trigger questions if the importer cannot demonstrate that the documentation actually covers the imported model.
The invoice may identify one manufacturer while the conformity documents identify another.
This can lead to additional verification.
Authorities may need to examine whether a test report is authentic, valid and applicable to the imported product.
A shipment selected for physical inspection may take longer than one cleared through documentary control alone.
Testing can substantially extend the process.
The importer should determine:
what is being tested;
why testing was required;
where the sample was sent;
when it was sent;
and whether additional information is still outstanding.
One of the most common causes of extended inspections is a sequence of document requests.
The importer uploads documents.
The inspector identifies another issue.
Additional documents are requested.
The foreign manufacturer takes several days to provide them.
The process then continues.
The resulting delay may therefore be partly administrative and partly attributable to the importer or manufacturer.
This is strategically essential.
Prepare a timeline:
Day 1 – TAREKS application
Day 2 – Inspection referral
Day 4 – Documents requested
Day 8 – Importer uploads documents
Day 10 – Additional report requested
Day 17 – Manufacturer supplies report
Day 18 – Importer uploads report
Day 35 – No further action
This chronology immediately shows where the delay occurred.
Importers must also comply with their own procedural obligations.
Ministry guidance concerning import inspections has emphasized that, for products directed to physical inspection under relevant communiqués, required documents must be uploaded within the period prescribed by the applicable rules; failure to provide required documentation within the applicable period can lead to an adverse result. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
Therefore, an importer who waited several weeks to provide requested documents will have a weaker argument that the entire delay was caused by the administration.
Potentially, yes.
But the legal strategy depends on whether there is already an identifiable administrative act or whether the problem consists principally of administrative inactivity.
A product safety authority is entitled—and in relevant circumstances required—to examine whether imported products comply with applicable safety legislation.
The importer therefore cannot demand that the authority simply ignore a legitimate safety concern because storage costs are increasing.
However, administrative powers must be exercised according to law and for their regulatory purpose.
An inspection should not remain unresolved indefinitely without legitimate procedural justification.
The distinction can be illustrated simply.
Reasonable delay: documents are being examined, samples are undergoing necessary laboratory tests, the manufacturer is being asked to clarify genuine technical inconsistencies.
Potentially challengeable delay: all requested documents have been supplied, no additional test or information is pending, the file remains inactive for a prolonged period and the importer cannot obtain a meaningful explanation.
The second situation presents a much stronger basis for legal intervention.
Importers should avoid relying solely on telephone conversations.
Determine in writing:
which inspection stage is pending;
whether any document is missing;
whether samples were taken;
whether laboratory testing is underway;
whether additional information is required;
and which authority currently has the file.
This creates an evidentiary record.
Preserve screenshots and electronic records showing:
application date;
reference number;
document uploads;
requests for additional information;
inspection status;
and system notifications.
Emails with inspectors, customs brokers, laboratories, foreign manufacturers and conformity-assessment bodies can later establish who caused each period of delay.
Electronic systems themselves can occasionally experience interruptions.
For example, the Ministry announced a planned interruption affecting TAREKS and other import systems during August 2026 because of maintenance and infrastructure improvements. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
Where system availability contributes to a deadline or delay dispute, contemporaneous evidence should be preserved.
This distinction is extremely important.
Importers often say:
“Customs is refusing to release my goods.”
But the customs administration may actually be waiting for another authority or inspection unit to complete the product-safety procedure.
The legal action should target the correct administrative problem.
Depending on the product, inspection can involve the Ministry of Trade, Turkish Standards Institution or another competent authority under the applicable technical legislation.
For example, the Ministry’s 2026 guidance states that inspections for certain industrial inputs and machinery are conducted by the Turkish Standards Institution under procedures established by the Ministry. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
This wastes valuable time.
First map:
Customs Administration → TAREKS → Inspection Unit → TSE/Relevant Authority → Laboratory, if any.
Then identify where the file is actually waiting.
The importer can communicate the urgency and request that the pending procedure be completed, particularly where all requested documents have been submitted.
The request should be factual rather than simply stating that the company is losing money.
If the delay threatens a factory shutdown, provide production schedules.
If demurrage is accumulating, provide invoices.
If the products are seasonal, explain the commercial window.
If customer penalties are accruing, provide the contract.
This does not eliminate safety requirements, but it demonstrates the consequences of inactivity.
The request should be:
“Please complete the legally required procedure without unnecessary delay.”
Not:
“Release the goods without completing the required inspection.”
That distinction matters.
Potentially, where the requests appear unrelated, repetitive or unsupported by the applicable technical requirements.
But first determine whether the requested document genuinely relates to conformity.
A written explanation can clarify whether the request arises from:
the applicable communiqué;
technical regulation;
standard;
product discrepancy;
risk analysis;
or previous non-compliance.
Many Turkish inspection delays arise because the importer does not possess the technical documentation.
The foreign manufacturer may hold:
technical files;
test reports;
EU declarations of conformity;
certificates;
design records;
risk assessments;
and production information.
Waiting until Turkish authorities request each document individually creates avoidable delays.
For regularly imported products, compliance documentation should be prepared before the goods leave the exporting country.
Compare:
Purchase Order → Invoice → Packing List → Product Label → Declaration of Conformity → Test Report → Certificate
The model identification should be consistent.
Corporate restructuring frequently creates problems.
A test certificate may contain the manufacturer’s former legal name while the invoice contains the new company name.
Prepare documentation explaining the change before inspection.
Make sure the standards and technical legislation relied upon correspond with the product and applicable requirements.
Technical documentation prepared in another language may require explanation or translation depending on the applicable procedure.
Plan for this before the shipment arrives.
Warehouse or customs-site changes can complicate an ongoing product safety inspection.
Previous Ministry guidance has stated that cancellation requests based on warehouse changes may be considered only after completion of the physical inspection and a finding that the products are safe, with additional documentation or testing potentially required where the change involves another inspection unit’s jurisdiction. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
This demonstrates why importers should choose the customs and warehouse structure carefully before beginning the application.
Attempting to restart the procedure merely because the first application was selected for inspection can create additional scrutiny.
This depends on the applicable customs regime, inspection procedure and status of the goods.
The importer should obtain case-specific advice before moving, manipulating or attempting to clear goods subject to an unresolved safety inspection.
A commercial need to deliver products does not override applicable product safety requirements.
If the goods satisfy the applicable requirements, the inspection process should proceed toward the relevant positive outcome allowing customs procedures to continue.
At that stage, the importer should preserve the positive inspection result.
It may become useful in future imports of the same product, although previous compliance does not necessarily guarantee that every future shipment will avoid inspection.
The company should immediately identify the precise reason.
Is the problem:
documentation?
labeling?
CE marking?
technical testing?
chemical limits?
product construction?
manufacturer information?
or another technical requirement?
The remedy depends on the deficiency.
A missing document does not necessarily mean that the physical product is unsafe.
Likewise, perfect paperwork does not guarantee that a product is technically compliant.
The legal strategy should reflect the actual problem.
Potentially.
Where an adverse administrative determination is based on incorrect technical or factual conclusions, the importer should examine the applicable administrative remedies and judicial review possibilities.
Technical evidence will often be crucial.
If the dispute concerns testing methodology or interpretation of a standard, an independent expert assessment can strengthen the file.
Where legally and practically possible, ensure that the identity and chain of custody of tested samples can be reconstructed.
Check:
product model;
sample identification;
test method;
applicable standard;
limit value;
measurement result;
and laboratory information.
If the laboratory tested Product A but the customs declaration concerns Product B, that discrepancy should be identified immediately.
This is a separate question from obtaining release of the goods.
Under Turkish administrative-law principles, an importer suffering demonstrable loss because of unlawful administrative action or omission may, depending on the circumstances, need to examine potential compensation remedies.
However, compensation is not automatic merely because an inspection took a long time.
Product safety inspections serve a legitimate public interest.
Some commercial inconvenience is therefore inherent in regulatory control.
A stronger compensation case generally requires evidence that the administration acted unlawfully, unreasonably or failed to perform its obligations appropriately and that this conduct caused identifiable financial loss.
Suppose the shipment was delayed 45 days.
But the foreign manufacturer itself took 30 days to provide a required test report.
The importer may have difficulty attributing the entire 45-day loss to the administration.
For each day identify responsibility:
Importer
Manufacturer
Customs
Inspection Authority
Laboratory
System interruption
Other
This can become critical in a compensation dispute.
Depending on the circumstances, the importer may experience:
storage charges;
demurrage;
container detention;
warehouse charges;
additional transport costs;
contractual penalties;
lost sales;
production interruption;
spoiled goods;
and lost commercial opportunities.
These losses are normally supported by invoices.
A claim that the company “would have made EUR 1 million” is not enough by itself.
Sales history, customer orders, contracts, margins and inventory information may be required to establish the alleged loss.
If imported machinery or components were required for production, preserve:
production plans;
inventory records;
shutdown reports;
customer orders;
and correspondence showing the operational impact.
Delay can be particularly damaging for:
fashion;
school products;
holiday products;
summer products;
and campaign-specific merchandise.
Evidence showing the limited sales window should be preserved.
Where applicable, product deterioration can dramatically increase urgency.
Whether urgent judicial relief is available depends on the administrative act, procedural status and circumstances.
In a serious case involving ongoing and potentially irreparable commercial harm, the importer should promptly examine the appropriate administrative-law remedy rather than waiting indefinitely for the inspection to finish.
Before litigation, identify:
the competent authority;
the administrative action or inaction;
the relevant application;
notification dates;
the applicable communiqué;
and procedural requirements.
Legal strategy should begin while the loss can still be mitigated.
A company seeking compensation should be able to demonstrate reasonable attempts to reduce its losses.
Demurrage may sometimes be reduced through commercial arrangements.
Where legally permitted, alternative customs storage arrangements may reduce costs.
If contractual penalties are accumulating, obtain extensions where possible.
Evidence that management actively attempted to reduce losses strengthens the credibility of a later damages claim.
International supply contracts should allocate responsibility for:
technical documentation;
product conformity;
certification;
testing;
incorrect CE marking;
regulatory inspection;
storage;
demurrage;
and rejected shipments.
The foreign manufacturer should be required to provide compliance documents promptly.
If a delay resulted because the manufacturer supplied an invalid certificate or incorrect declaration of conformity, the Turkish importer may have a contractual claim against the supplier.
A regulatory delay may actually originate from the foreign manufacturer.
While challenging an administrative delay, determine whether the supplier breached its own obligations.
If the customs representative entered incorrect information into TAREKS or submitted the wrong documents, the factual cause of the delay should be investigated.
The importer should establish exactly what documents and information were supplied to the customs representative.
Turkey continues to apply extensive product-safety controls at importation. The 2026 framework includes multiple Product Safety and Inspection Communiqués covering industrial goods, CE-regulated products, toys, PPE, consumer goods, machinery and other categories. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
TAREKS remains the central risk-based electronic system for many of these controls, with the Ministry emphasizing risk-focused inspection rather than inspection of every shipment. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
Importers should therefore treat product-safety compliance as part of customs planning rather than something to address only after goods arrive at the border.
Determine the TAREKS application number, inspection authority, applicable 2026 communiqué, current inspection stage and whether any document or action is outstanding.
Preserve every system notification.
Contact the foreign manufacturer and obtain the complete technical file.
Compare every model, manufacturer name and technical reference with the imported products.
Create the delay chronology.
Identify exactly which days resulted from importer action, manufacturer response, laboratory testing and administrative inactivity.
If all requested documents have been supplied but the procedure remains inactive, consider a formal written application requesting completion of the inspection and explaining the growing commercial losses.
At the same time, begin documenting storage, demurrage and contractual consequences.
Determine:
when the sample was taken;
where it was sent;
which test is being conducted;
whether additional information is required;
and whether the test has been completed.
Document every attempt to obtain information.
Repeated unanswered written applications can become relevant evidence if the dispute later moves into administrative proceedings.
Calculate the daily financial loss.
Management should know whether the shipment is costing:
EUR 500 per day;
EUR 5,000 per day;
or EUR 50,000 per day.
This affects the urgency and proportionality of the legal strategy.
Companies importing repeatedly into Turkey should create a pre-shipment compliance procedure.
Before goods leave the foreign factory, verify:
GTIP;
applicable ÜGD communiqué;
CE requirements;
declaration of conformity;
test reports;
manufacturer identity;
product model;
labeling;
technical documentation;
and TAREKS requirements.
For each imported model record:
Product | GTIP | Manufacturer | Applicable Regulation | CE Status | Test Report | Certificate | Previous TAREKS Result
This can substantially reduce future delays.
A manufacturer may change a component while keeping the same commercial model name.
That can affect conformity documentation.
A new factory may require different compliance evidence.
A certificate covering one model family should not automatically be assumed to cover every later product.
When an importer faces an extended product safety inspection in Turkey, the first step should be identifying the exact applicable 2026 Product Safety and Inspection Communiqué, the authority conducting the inspection and the procedural stage at which the shipment has stopped. The company should determine whether documents, samples, laboratory testing or additional technical information remain outstanding. A detailed chronology should separate delays attributable to the importer and foreign manufacturer from periods of administrative inactivity. All TAREKS records, correspondence, laboratory documents and customs records should be preserved. Where the administration is actively conducting a legally required inspection, the importer generally cannot require the safety process simply to be abandoned. Where all requirements have been fulfilled but the file remains unresolved without adequate justification, formal administrative applications and, depending on the circumstances, appropriate judicial remedies should be evaluated. Commercial losses should be documented from the first day because storage, demurrage, production interruption and lost-sales claims become difficult to reconstruct months later. The practical strategy is therefore: identify the applicable ÜGD communiqué → identify the responsible authority → determine the inspection stage → verify outstanding documents → obtain the manufacturer’s complete technical file → correct documentation inconsistencies → track laboratory testing → build a day-by-day chronology → make written status requests → document commercial urgency → request completion of the procedure → challenge an unsupported negative result where appropriate → evaluate urgent administrative-law remedies in cases of excessive inactivity → preserve evidence of storage and demurrage → mitigate continuing losses → examine supplier responsibility → assess potential compensation remedies if unlawful administrative delay causes proven damage.
Yes. Products covered by applicable technical regulations and Product Safety and Inspection Communiqués may be subject to import-stage conformity controls before they can proceed through the relevant import process.
No. TAREKS operates on a risk-based basis, and selection for inspection does not by itself constitute a final determination that the product is unsafe or non-compliant. (https://ticaret.gov.tr)
Potentially. The circumstances must be examined carefully. A necessary ongoing technical examination is different from prolonged administrative inactivity after all requested information has been provided.
Increasing commercial costs do not automatically override mandatory product safety controls. However, the importer can document the urgency and seek prompt completion of the legally required procedure.
The company should identify the legal or technical basis of each request, provide responsive documents promptly and preserve a complete record of every request and submission.
Potentially, particularly where the delay becomes excessive or unexplained. The importer should first determine when the sample was taken, which test is being performed, whether testing is actually underway and whether further information is required.
A potential compensation claim may need to be examined where an unlawful administrative act or omission causes demonstrable financial loss. Compensation is not automatic merely because an inspection took longer than expected.
Potentially, depending on the legal basis and evidence. Lost-profit claims generally require considerably stronger proof of causation and amount than invoices for storage or demurrage.
Yes. If the delay resulted from missing technical documents, incorrect conformity declarations, invalid certificates or product non-compliance attributable to the manufacturer, contractual remedies against the supplier may need to be considered.
Preserve the TAREKS application and notifications, customs declaration, invoices, technical documentation, conformity declarations, test reports, laboratory records, correspondence, customs broker communications, storage invoices, demurrage invoices and evidence of customer or production losses.
Importers facing prolonged TAREKS inspections, CE conformity controls, technical-document reviews, laboratory testing, product safety examinations or customs clearance delays can incur substantial storage, demurrage, production and contractual losses.
Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office provides legal assistance to foreign investors, international manufacturers, Turkish importers and multinational companies facing product safety and customs inspection disputes in Turkey.
Fırat Fesih Kaya can assist with TAREKS and product-safety inspection disputes, excessive administrative delays, technical-documentation problems, negative conformity decisions, customs clearance issues, supplier liability, administrative applications, compensation claims and the applicable administrative and judicial proceedings.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile Phone: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yildirim Tower, Balgat, Cankaya / Ankara, Turkey