Goods may be detained, withheld, seized or placed under customs supervision in Türkiye for a variety of reasons. These may include an incorrect customs declaration, missing import documents, licensing problems, suspected undervaluation, misclassification of goods, prohibited or restricted imports, failure to complete customs procedures within the statutory period, or suspicion of a smuggling offence.

From a legal perspective, however, the most important issue is not simply that the goods are physically being held by Turkish Customs. The first question must always be:

What is the legal basis on which the goods are being held?

This distinction determines which authority must be contacted, which objection procedure must be followed, which court has jurisdiction and, most importantly, how quickly action must be taken before the goods become subject to liquidation.

Under Turkish law, the principal legislation in this area includes:

• Customs Law No. 4458 (Gümrük Kanunu);
• Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607 (Kaçakçılıkla Mücadele Kanunu);
• Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu – CMK);
• relevant customs regulations and liquidation regulations; and
• depending on the goods concerned, sector-specific import, product safety, licensing and foreign trade regulations.

The procedure for recovering the goods therefore depends on the legal classification of the customs action.

1. The First Step: Determine Why the Goods Were Seized or Detained

The most important step in any customs seizure case is to obtain and review the official documents relating to the intervention.

It is not sufficient for the importer, exporter, passenger or logistics company to state that “Customs seized the goods.” Turkish law recognises several legally different situations which may appear similar from a practical perspective.

The goods may, for example:

• simply remain under customs supervision;
• have been placed in temporary storage;
• be withheld because required documents have not been submitted;
• have become subject to an administrative customs procedure;
• have been seized as evidence in a criminal investigation;
• be considered suspected smuggled goods under Law No. 5607; or
• have already become legally eligible for liquidation.

The Ministry of Trade itself identifies numerous situations in which goods may become subject to liquidation under Article 177 of Customs Law No. 4458, including failure to complete customs formalities within applicable periods, goods abandoned to customs, certain undeclared or excess goods, prohibited goods, goods subject to licences or permits where the required conditions have not been fulfilled, and goods that become liquidatable under Law No. 5607.

Accordingly, before any application for return is made, the customs file should be obtained and examined.

2. Documents That Should Be Obtained Immediately

A lawyer handling the recovery of seized goods should normally request all documents relating to the customs intervention, including where applicable:

• customs inspection reports;
• seizure or detention reports;
• search and seizure records;
• customs declarations;
• administrative penalty decisions;
• additional customs duty assessments;
• laboratory or technical examination reports;
• valuation reports;
• minutes identifying the quantity, type and characteristics of the goods;
• correspondence between Customs and other public authorities;
• import licences, certificates or conformity documents;
• the prosecutor’s investigation number;
• any judicial seizure order;
• decisions of the Criminal Judgeship of Peace;
• any liquidation or transfer document; and
• notification documents showing when decisions were served on the interested party.

Under the regulatory system applicable to goods seized on suspicion of smuggling, the type, quantity, brand, model, serial number and other identifying characteristics of the goods are required to be recorded in detail. The goods are then generally delivered to the relevant customs authority or designated storage facility.

These documents are critical because the appropriate legal remedy cannot be determined without identifying the precise legal basis of the measure.

3. Is the Customs Measure Administrative or Judicial?

This is the central distinction in Turkish customs seizure cases.

A. Administrative Customs Measures

A dispute may be predominantly administrative where the matter concerns issues such as:

• incorrect customs declaration;
• customs value;
• tariff classification;
• customs duties;
• administrative customs penalties;
• missing documentation;
• import licences;
• product conformity;
• customs regime violations; or
• other administrative customs decisions.

In such cases, Customs Law No. 4458 is generally the primary legislation.

Article 242 of Customs Law No. 4458 provides an administrative objection mechanism against notified customs duties, penalties and administrative decisions. The objection must generally be made within 15 days following notification, to the superior authority or, where there is no superior authority, to the authority that issued the decision.

After the administrative objection procedure, the rejection of the objection may be challenged before the competent administrative judiciary.

The correct judicial venue depends on the nature of the customs dispute. Customs duty and penalty disputes will frequently fall within the jurisdiction of tax courts, whereas other customs-related administrative acts may require a different jurisdictional assessment. Under Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law, where no special period applies, the general action period is 60 days before administrative courts and 30 days before tax courts.

For this reason, the notification date of every customs decision must be recorded immediately.

B. Judicial Seizure and Criminal Investigation

The situation is substantially different where Customs believes that the goods may constitute the subject matter of a smuggling offence under Law No. 5607.

Article 9 of Law No. 5607 expressly provides that searches and seizures concerning suspected smuggled goods are carried out in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

Once a criminal investigation has been initiated, the matter is no longer merely a customs administrative dispute.

There may be:

• a Public Prosecutor’s Office investigation;
• a judicial seizure order;
• evidence collected for a criminal case;
• a possible confiscation claim; and
• a risk of liquidation under Article 16 of Law No. 5607.

In this situation, merely filing an administrative petition with the customs office may not be sufficient to secure the release of the goods.

4. Recovery of Seized Goods Under the Criminal Procedure Code

Article 131 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code is one of the most important provisions in applications for the return of seized property.

Under Article 131, property belonging to a suspect, defendant or a third party may be returned where:

1. keeping the property is no longer necessary for the investigation or prosecution; or
2. it becomes apparent that the property will not be subject to confiscation.

A return may be ordered ex officio or upon application by the interested party. A decision rejecting the return request may be challenged.

Therefore, where the evidence necessary for the criminal investigation has already been obtained—for example through photographs, samples, technical examination, serial-number records or expert reports—it may be argued that continued physical retention of the goods is no longer necessary.

An effective application should not merely state that the owner needs the goods. It should legally demonstrate why:

• the goods no longer have evidential value requiring physical retention;
• all necessary examinations have been completed;
• ownership has been established;
• the goods are not inherently illegal;
• the goods are not subject to confiscation;
• continued seizure is disproportionate; and
• preservation of the goods would cause unnecessary economic loss.

If a judicial decision rejecting the request is issued, the applicable objection mechanism under the Criminal Procedure Code must also be considered. Following the amendments effective from 1 June 2024, the general objection period under Article 268 CMK is two weeks, unless the law provides otherwise.

5. The Importance of Law No. 5607

Not every customs irregularity constitutes smuggling.

This distinction is extremely important.

A customs declaration error, missing document or administrative irregularity may result in customs duties or administrative penalties without necessarily constituting a criminal offence.

Law No. 5607 becomes relevant where the factual allegations satisfy one of the smuggling offences defined by the legislation.

Examples may include allegations that goods were:

• brought into Türkiye without being subjected to customs procedures;
• fraudulently imported by misleading customs authorities;
• imported contrary to applicable prohibitions;
• connected with fraudulent customs documentation; or
• otherwise involved in conduct specifically criminalised under Law No. 5607.

Accordingly, a defence strategy should examine not only whether the goods should be returned, but also whether the underlying conduct legally constitutes a criminal offence at all.

6. Confiscation and the Return of Goods

One of the main reasons customs authorities or criminal courts may refuse to release goods is the possibility of confiscation (müsadere).

Article 13 of Law No. 5607 refers to the confiscation rules of the Turkish Criminal Code.

Article 54 of the Turkish Criminal Code is particularly important for third-party ownership because the general confiscation rule applies subject to the protection afforded to property belonging to bona fide third parties.

Therefore, ownership and good faith can become decisive issues.

A company whose goods were transported, declared or handled by another party may have a substantially stronger return claim if it can demonstrate that:

• it is the genuine owner of the goods;
• it was not involved in the alleged criminal conduct;
• it did not knowingly permit the goods to be used for an offence;
• the commercial transaction is genuine; and
• its acquisition and possession are supported by proper documentation.

7. Recovery of Goods Belonging to a Third Party

Turkish law does not restrict return applications only to the suspect or defendant.

Article 131 CMK expressly refers to goods belonging to third persons.

Therefore, where the goods legally belong to someone other than the person under criminal investigation, the real owner should file an independent return request.

Evidence of ownership may include:

• commercial invoices;
• purchase agreements;
• bank transfer records;
• bills of lading;
• CMR transport documents;
• airway bills;
• warehouse documents;
• insurance policies;
• customs declarations;
• accounting records;
• serial-number records; and
• correspondence regarding the commercial transaction.

In third-party cases, merely producing an invoice may not always be sufficient. The entire commercial chain should be documented in order to establish genuine ownership and good faith.

8. The Risk of Liquidation of Seized Goods

One of the greatest mistakes in customs seizure cases is to assume that goods will simply remain in a customs warehouse until the criminal proceedings have finally ended.

This assumption can be incorrect.

Under Article 16 of Law No. 5607, goods seized on suspicion of smuggling may become subject to liquidation before the final conclusion of lengthy criminal proceedings.

For suspected smuggled goods other than illicit fuel, the law provides a liquidation framework linked to the date of seizure. As a general rule, the relevant determination and liquidation procedure may arise within six months; where the goods are at risk of deterioration, substantial loss of value or impose a serious storage burden, considerably faster liquidation may occur. The decision is taken by the judge during the investigation stage and by the court during the prosecution stage.

This makes urgent legal intervention essential.

The Ministry of Trade also confirms that goods seized under Law No. 5607 may become subject to liquidation and that goods not collected within the prescribed period following a return decision may themselves become subject to liquidation.

9. How Can Liquidation Be Prevented?

Where there is a genuine possibility that the goods will be returned, the lawyer should not wait passively for the criminal investigation to conclude.

Depending on the circumstances, immediate applications should be considered for:

• return of the goods under Article 131 CMK;
• lifting of the seizure measure;
• objection against the relevant judicial decision;
• determination that continued physical retention is unnecessary;
• completion of expert examination or sampling without delay;
• recognition of third-party ownership;
• suspension or prevention of liquidation while the return application is pending; and
• where relevant, judicial protection against the underlying administrative customs decision.

The application should expressly draw the authority’s attention to the economic consequences of liquidation.

This is especially important for:

• electronics;
• machinery;
• seasonal products;
• perishable goods;
• pharmaceutical or medical products;
• goods with expiration dates;
• products whose market price is rapidly declining; and
• specialised commercial equipment.

Once goods have been sold or otherwise liquidated, physical recovery may become impossible even if the owner later succeeds legally.

10. What Happens if the Goods Have Already Been Liquidated?

Liquidation does not necessarily mean that all legal rights are lost.

Law No. 5607 provides mechanisms dealing with situations where goods have been liquidated but a subsequent decision requires their return.

In such circumstances, the legal consequence may shift from physical return of the goods to payment of the relevant liquidation or sale proceeds together with applicable statutory interest, subject to the relevant provisions of the Customs Law.

However, from a commercial perspective, monetary compensation may not always adequately replace the original goods.

For example, the goods may have:

• a unique commercial value;
• increased substantially in market price;
• been manufactured specifically for a customer;
• been necessary for an ongoing project; or
• caused additional contractual losses because of delayed delivery.

Therefore, preventing liquidation is generally preferable to attempting to obtain compensation after liquidation.

11. Collection of the Goods After a Return Decision

Obtaining a favourable return decision does not complete the procedure.

The decision must be implemented before the customs authority and the goods must actually be collected.

Under the customs regime applicable to goods seized pursuant to Law No. 5607, where a court orders the return of goods, the period during which the goods remain in custody extends to the thirtieth day following notification of the return decision by the customs directorate. The Ministry of Trade also identifies goods that are not collected within 30 days following such notification as potentially subject to liquidation.

Consequently, once a return decision has been obtained, the owner should immediately complete any remaining customs formalities and take delivery of the goods.

12. Customs and Foreign Trade Requirements May Still Apply

A judicial decision ordering the return of seized goods does not necessarily mean that the goods may immediately enter free circulation in Türkiye.

There are two separate legal questions:

First: Must the goods continue to remain seized for criminal proceedings?

Second: Are the goods legally importable into Türkiye?

These questions should not be confused.

Even where criminal seizure is lifted, the owner may still be required to:

• submit an import declaration;
• pay customs duties and taxes;
• obtain an import licence;
• obtain a conformity certificate;
• comply with product safety rules;
• satisfy technical regulations;
• complete inspection procedures; or
• re-export the goods.

Law No. 5607 itself recognises this distinction by providing that where seized goods are ordered to be returned, implementation of that decision is carried out in accordance with the applicable customs and foreign trade legislation.

Therefore, a successful criminal-law return application does not automatically eliminate customs-law obligations.

13. Recommended Legal Strategy

A practical customs recovery case in Türkiye should normally proceed in the following order.

Step 1 – Obtain the complete customs file

Identify every customs report, decision, seizure record and notification.

Step 2 – Identify whether a criminal investigation exists

The relevant Public Prosecutor’s Office and investigation number should be determined.

Step 3 – Identify the legal basis of the measure

Determine whether the goods are being retained under:

• Customs Law No. 4458;
• Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607;
• the Criminal Procedure Code; or
• another sector-specific regulation.

Step 4 – Examine the underlying customs allegation

Determine whether the alleged irregularity is genuinely criminal or merely administrative.

Step 5 – Establish ownership

Invoices, payment documents, transport records and accounting documents should be collected.

Step 6 – Check confiscation risk

Determine whether the goods may legally be subject to confiscation.

Step 7 – File the appropriate application

Depending on the case, this may include:

• an Article 242 customs objection;
• a CMK Article 131 return request;
• an objection against a judicial seizure or return decision;
• an administrative lawsuit; or
• parallel applications before customs and judicial authorities.

Step 8 – Act against liquidation risk

The current legal status of the goods should be confirmed with the customs and liquidation authorities immediately.

Step 9 – Complete customs requirements

If the goods are ordered to be released, all remaining customs, import and regulatory obligations should be fulfilled.

Step 10 – Take physical delivery without delay

A favourable decision should be implemented immediately so that the goods do not become subject to liquidation because they were not collected.

Conclusion

Recovering goods seized by Turkish Customs is not a single legal procedure.

The correct remedy depends primarily on why the goods were seized and which authority is legally responsible for their continued retention.

Where the dispute is administrative, Customs Law No. 4458 and the administrative objection and judicial review procedures become central.

Where there is suspicion of smuggling, Law No. 5607 and the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code become particularly important. In such cases, an application under Article 131 CMK may provide a route for recovering goods where continued retention is no longer necessary or where the goods are not subject to confiscation.

Third-party owners may also request the return of their property and should particularly demonstrate ownership and good faith.

Finally, time is critical. Goods seized on suspicion of smuggling may become subject to liquidation before the entire criminal case is finally concluded. For this reason, the customs file, criminal investigation and liquidation status should be investigated simultaneously rather than consecutively.