That goods or a vehicle are not handed over at customs does not mean that ownership has passed to the state. First it must be determined whether the measure is customs supervision, administrative retention, judicial seizure, or confiscation. This is because the authority that can lift the decision, the time limit for applying, and the route to be followed to stop a sale depend on this distinction.
Short answer: Seizure is a temporary criminal procedure measure; confiscation is a security measure whose conditions are assessed by the court. Retention can be applied for different reasons under different laws. A single objection period cannot be stated for all files without reviewing the record, the decision, the notification, and, if any, the disposal document together. [1, 2, 3]
Which measures can the holding of goods at customs rest on?
A passenger’s suitcase, an importer’s container, and a truck suspected of carrying smuggled goods can be in the same warehouse. Their legal situations, however, may not be the same. Waiting for customs procedures to be completed so that a missing document can be remedied is assessed separately from seizure to preserve criminal evidence. For every measure that actually prevents delivery, the decision number and the legal provision relied on should be requested.
| Type of measure | Legal effect | First document to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Customs supervision and administrative holding | Subjecting the goods to customs procedure and control | Declaration, notice of deficiency, administrative decision |
| Judicial seizure | Preserving evidence or property that may be subject to confiscation | Prosecutor’s order, judge’s decision, and approval record |
| Retention of a vehicle under Law No. 5607 | Actual custody of the vehicle under the special conditions in the law | Seizure and retention decision, delivery record |
| Confiscation | Security measure directed at ownership, the conditions of which are examined by the court | Reasoned judgment, appeal route, and finalization record |
| Transfer of ownership to the public | Administrative sanction in cases the law permits | Sanction decision based on the relevant special provision |
Disposal (tasfiye), in turn, is the process relating to the sale, other realization, or destruction of the goods. A disposal decision and a confiscation decision do not take the place of one another. If the conditions in the law are met, a sale can take place before the criminal case ends; in that case the dispute over the goods may continue over the proceeds. [2, 4]
What safeguards exist for judicial seizure?
Article 123 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) regulates the safekeeping of goods and assets that are considered useful as means of proof or that are subject to confiscation. Seizure comes into question for goods that are not handed over voluntarily. It must be clear for which goods and on suspicion of which offense the measure was taken. Finding a suspicious product in one package does not justify holding, without reasons, all the goods unrelated to the file. [1]
Under CMK Article 127, the rule is a judge’s decision. In cases where delay would be prejudicial, the measure may be taken by the written order of the public prosecutor, or, where the prosecutor cannot be reached, of the superior of the law enforcement officers. A seizure made without a judge’s decision is submitted to the judge for approval within 24 hours; the judge announces the decision within 48 hours of the seizure. Otherwise the seizure lapses automatically. These periods do not apply to every kind of holding at customs; they concern the approval review of a judicial measure. [1]
Search and seizure are also separate measures. Article 9 of the Anti-Smuggling Law (Kaçakçılıkla Mücadele Kanunu) contains special provisions on customs control. It therefore cannot be said that “every check at customs is unlawful if there is no prior judge’s decision.” The place, type, and scope of the check and the judicial measure applied afterward are examined on their own conditions. [2]
How are the authority for the application and the time limit determined?
Seizure in a criminal file and the request for return
Under CMK Article 127/4, a person whose goods have been seized may request a decision from the judge at any time. CMK Article 131, in turn, allows a request for return when safekeeping is no longer necessary or when it becomes clear that the goods will not be subject to confiscation. Depending on the investigation or prosecution stage, the authority of the prosecutor’s office, the judge, or the court hearing the case is assessed. A refusal of a request for return can be objected to. [1]
Against decisions of a judge and of the courts the law designates, the general objection period under CMK Article 268, unless there is a special provision, is two weeks from learning of the decision. The objection is submitted to the authority that issued the decision; the reviewing authority is determined according to the type of decision. The old seven-day account that can be seen on the internet should not be used as the current general period. That an application for return can be made at any time also does not make the time limit for the appeal route against a specific refusal decision unimportant. [1]
Application against a decision of the customs administration
Against customs duties, penalties, and administrative decisions within the scope of Article 242 of Law No. 4458, an objection is made within 15 days of notification to a higher authority, or to the same authority if there is no higher authority. The law provides for this objection to be decided and notified within 30 days. The subsequent judicial route is determined separately according to the nature of the decision. [4]
In disputes within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the tax court, the general time limit for filing suit is 30 days, and in the administrative court 60 days; special regulations, mandatory administrative applications, implied rejection, and the calculation of notification may change the result. It is therefore wrong to write the same explanation, “objection to the criminal judgeship of peace within 15 days,” on every document in a seizure file. [4, 5]
Appeal route against a confiscation judgment
If a judgment on confiscation has been rendered, a petition of objection to the seizure alone may no longer be sufficient. The appellate (istinaf) or cassation (temyiz) review of the judgment, the capacity of the applicant, the date the decision was rendered, and the statement of appeal routes are considered together. An owner who has not been sentenced may also be affected by a judgment concerning the property. The CMK provisions on hearing third parties in a confiscation review apply separately. [1, 3]
Does objecting stop the sale or destruction?
Under CMK Article 269, an objection does not by itself suspend the execution of the decision; the authority whose decision is objected to, or the reviewing authority, may stop the enforcement. In administrative courts as well, filing a case generally does not suspend execution by itself. The conditions under Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) and the special provisions for tax cases are assessed separately. [1, 5]
If there is a risk of sale, the petition should therefore not merely ask for “the measure to be lifted.” The approaching auction or destruction date, why the goods must be preserved in kind, which damage later payment of the value would not cover, and the sufficiency of lighter measures should be made concrete. The decision in the criminal file and the implementing act of the customs administration must be followed separately. Having made an application is not the same as a stay order having been granted.
Preserving the goods and documenting damage
Article 11 of Law No. 5607 provides for recording distinguishing information such as quantity, type, brand, model, and serial number in a record. For a vehicle, the mileage, number of keys, equipment, and visible damage; for electronic goods, the serial number and operating condition; for cargo, packaging, seals, and quantity information are important for later return. For valuable or perishable goods, appropriate storage conditions should also be entered in the record. [2]
The Constitutional Court’s (AYM) Ova Elektronik İletişim Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. decision is a concrete example on this point. The applicant asserted that the seized phones and parts were returned missing or with altered characteristics. The AYM considered it necessary to assess the condition at the stage of delivery against the records at the beginning of safekeeping and to answer the substantive objections. A violation of the procedural safeguards of the right to property and a retrial were ordered; no compensation amount was directly determined in the applicant’s favor. [6]
The practical counterpart of the decision is this: writing only the total number of boxes on the delivery document may not be sufficient. A finding comparable with the initial inventory can show which damage arose during the safekeeping period. The administration’s statement that “the goods were preserved” and the owner’s claim that “I received them incomplete” should be argued on the basis of documents, photographs, and expert examination.
Can compensation be requested for unlawful seizure?
CMK Article 141/1-j covers damage arising from seizure without the conditions being met, failure to take the necessary protective measures, use of the goods for a purpose other than the intended one, or failure to return them in time. For a claim under this subparagraph, the high criminal court route under CMK Article 142 is examined. The Compensation Commission (Tazminat Komisyonu) route introduced by the 2024 amendment for certain other subparagraphs does not automatically apply to all claims relating to seizure. [1]
The general time-limit rule of CMK Article 142 is three months from notification of the finalization of the decision or judgment, and in any case one year from finalization. However, depending on the nature of the measure, there are also damages that can be claimed without waiting for the criminal case to end. The approach reflected in the cited AYM decision does not support the conclusion that a final acquittal must be awaited in every case for damages from seizure. In a claim of an independent act of the administration or of service fault, the jurisdiction and application requirements are examined separately. [1, 6]
In a compensation claim, the damage items should be separated: physical damage, missing parts, loss of value, documented expenses, or, if the conditions are met, loss of earnings. The connection of the amount claimed with the event should be shown; the same damage should not be claimed twice together with payments received as sale proceeds and interest.
Documents that should be in the application file
• Copies of the seizure, retention, approval, disposal, and, if any, confiscation decisions.
• Notification documents, records showing the date of learning, and file numbers.
• License, invoice, sale or lease agreement, and transport and payment documents.
• The initial inventory, delivery record, photographs, serial numbers, and expert reports.
• Place of safekeeping, auction information, expense breakdown, and receipts for the applications made.
For a foreign person or company, the authorized representative, the scope of the power of attorney, and the translation/authentication requirements for a foreign document are checked separately. Being a foreign national does not remove the right to apply. The need for language support in a statement or defense should also be notified from the outset.
Conclusion
An effective application for goods held at customs begins with correctly identifying the type of measure and the date of each decision. Lifting a judicial measure, annulling an administrative decision, halting disposal, and redressing the damage can complement one another; but one does not take the place of another. Documenting the current condition of the goods together with copies of the decisions forms the basis of both return in kind and claims for value and compensation.
Related articles: When Does a Customs Violation Constitute the Offense of Smuggling? Defense under Law No. 5607; Return of Seized Vehicles and Goods: Rights of the Owner, Buyer, and Third Parties; Disposal and Sale of Goods at Customs: Recovering the Goods and Claims for Value; Retention or Seizure of Goods at the Airport: Record, Objection, and Return.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does taking goods at customs mean they have been confiscated?
No. Temporary safekeeping, administrative holding, or judicial seizure may be involved. For confiscation, a court decision and the relevant conditions are examined separately.
How many days is the time limit for objecting to a seizure decision?
The general objection period under the CMK, unless there is a special provision, is two weeks from learning of the decision. It should not be confused with the time limit for a decision of the customs administration.
Do the 24- and 48-hour periods apply to all customs measures?
No. They concern submitting a judicial seizure applied without a judge’s decision for approval and the announcement of the judge’s decision.
Can return of the goods be requested while the case is ongoing?
Yes. Conditions such as safekeeping no longer being necessary or it becoming clear that the goods will not be subject to confiscation can be raised under CMK Article 131.
Does a petition of objection prevent the sale by itself?
Generally it does not. Depending on the applicable procedure, a stay order should be requested separately and it should be followed up whether one has been granted.
Are the goods released from customs immediately upon acquittal?
Not always. The scope and enforceability of the return decision and the customs/foreign trade procedures must be completed separately. That the goods have been sold also changes the outcome.
What should be done if the record contains missing or incorrect information?
It should be stated clearly which information is wrong, and a request for correction and supporting documents should be submitted to the file. A copy of the record and its annexes should be obtained.
Can a foreign company request return of the goods?
It can apply by demonstrating entitlement and authority of representation. The conditions for using the company documents and the power of attorney in Türkiye are assessed separately.
Which documents matter if the goods are damaged in the warehouse?
The initial inventory, photographs, safekeeping records, delivery record, and technical examination report are important. The time and cause of the damage are linked to these documents.
Is every seizure compensation claimed from the Compensation Commission?
No. The route for a claim under CMK Article 141/1-j and the other claims for which the Commission is competent are separate. The act that caused the damage and the competent court must be determined.
References
- Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 123, 127, 131, 141–142, 256–258 and 267–269. Time-limit amendment: Law No. 7499, Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) March 12, 2024, No. 32487.
- Anti-Smuggling Law No. 5607 (5607 sayılı Kaçakçılıkla Mücadele Kanunu), in particular Arts. 9–11, 13 and 16.
- Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (5237 sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu), Art. 54; Law on Misdemeanors No. 5326 (5326 sayılı Kabahatler Kanunu), Art. 18.
- Customs Law No. 4458 (4458 sayılı Gümrük Kanunu), in particular Arts. 177–180 and 242.
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), in particular Arts. 7, 10–13 and 27.
- Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), Ova Elektronik İletişim Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., Application No. 2020/6618, January 14, 2025, in particular §§ 34–35 and 49–61. Official decision record · Full text access.