Where that account closes short, the duties never collected at import are recovered as of the import date, interest has been running since the regime declaration was registered, and a penalty follows under Article 238 — whose headline figure is not the one that usually applies.
An inward processing certificate in Türkiye does not end when its period runs out. It ends when the export commitment account is formally closed, and if that account closes with a shortfall, the consequences are set by Article 22 of Inward Processing Regime Decision No. 2005/8391 and Article 45 of Communiqué İhracat: 2006/12: the duties never collected at import are recovered as of the import date under Customs Law No. 4458 and Law No. 6183, and a penalty is applied on top under Article 238 of the Customs Law. Interest does not start when the problem is discovered — under Article 207(1)(b) it runs from the day the regime declaration was registered, which is usually a year or more earlier.
This note is about the closing stage, not the regime itself; how the relief works, and the choice between suspension and drawback, is covered in our guide to the inward processing regime in Türkiye. What follows assumes the certificate exists and the export has fallen short.
Inward Processing Closure Is an Application, Not an Expiry
The single most common cause of a sanctioned closure is not a failed export. It is a closure file that was never opened.
Article 37(1) of the Communiqué requires the holder of an inward processing certificate (dahilde işleme izin belgesi) to file the closure documents listed in its Annex 3 with the relevant regional directorate of the Ministry of Trade within three months of the end of the certificate period. Where the arrangement is a customs-issued inward processing permit (dahilde işleme izni) rather than a Ministry certificate, the period is also three months, and the difference is that the file goes to the customs administration rather than to the regional directorate; the one-month period that governed permits before the amendment of 14 September 2022 no longer applies. Article 37(2) removes any expectation of a prompt: meeting the deadline is the company’s own responsibility, and no separate written notification is sent during those periods.
If nothing arrives, or what arrives is incomplete, Article 38(1) gives one further month to complete the file. After that the account closes “on the documents available, with Article 45 also taken into account” — the Communiqué’s way of saying it closes with a sanction.
Two document points decide more closures than any argument about production. Article 38(2) treats registration of the export declaration inside the certificate period as sufficient for that declaration to count — but closure still requires proof that the export actually took place; where it did not, Article 45 applies. And Article 38(3) requires the original export declaration to bear the row code containing the certificate number. Article 24(3) rescues declarations that missed the row code, allowing justified-cause time to re-export the same goods under the same eight- to twelve-digit tariff heading, but its closing sentence excludes declarations carrying another certificate’s row code. A misallocated declaration is worse than a blank one.
The Deadlines That Actually Govern an Inward Processing File
Every relief in this area is time-barred, and Article 21(2) states plainly that an application not made within its period is not taken into consideration. The following table collects the periods that run from the end of the certificate or permit period.
| Step | Certificate (Ministry of Trade) | Permit (customs administration) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apply to close the commitment account | 3 months from expiry | 3 months from expiry | Communiqué Art. 37(1) |
| Complete a deficient closure file | 1 month from notification of the deficiency | Communiqué Art. 38(1) | |
| Apply for additional time | 3 months from expiry, electronically | 2 months from expiry | Communiqué Art. 21(1) |
| Apply on justified cause | 3 months from expiry | 2 months from expiry | Communiqué Art. 23(1) |
| Complete the regime at twice the irregularity fine | 1 month after expiry | Communiqué Art. 45(5) | |
| Complete the regime at four times the irregularity fine | 2 months after expiry | Communiqué Art. 45(5) | |
| Object to a sanctioned closure | 1 month from notification, in writing to the Ministry | 15 days from service, under Art. 242 | Decision Art. 19 |
The certificate period itself is set at up to twelve months by sector under Article 20(1), extended to the project duration for shipbuilding, turnkey plant, products with a production cycle longer than twelve months and defence-industry goods. Article 20(3) then ends the period on the last day of the month in which it would otherwise expire, additional, justified-cause and force-majeure time included.
The One- and Two-Month Windows Most Exporters Never Use
Article 45(5) of the Communiqué, mirrored in Article 22 of the Decision, is the most useful provision in the whole framework and the least used. Where goods brought into the Turkish Customs Territory under a certificate or permit have the required operations completed, or are exported, or are assigned another customs-approved treatment or use, within one month of the end of the period, those transactions are still assessed inside the certificate — the only cost is an irregularity fine at twice the base rate under Article 241(3) of the Customs Law. Do it within two months and the same applies at four times the base rate under Article 241(4).
The base irregularity fine is a fixed figure in Article 241(1), and Article 241(2) revalues it each year in line with the revaluation rate under Tax Procedure Law No. 213, so the current amount comes from the annual figure rather than from the statute as enacted. Even multiplied, it is an entirely different order of magnitude from a duty clawback carrying interest from the import date.
Article 19 of the Decision adds a related route. Where the imported goods or the main processed product are destroyed under customs supervision, abandoned to customs, or returned to origin in accordance with customs legislation, the export corresponding to those goods is not required at all — usually cheaper, for inputs that will never become exported product, than letting the account close against them.
What a Sanctioned Closure Actually Charges
Article 22 of the Decision and Article 45(1) of the Communiqué are drafted in parallel and list the situations in which duty is recovered. They are worth reading as a checklist, because a closure letter has to identify which one it relies on. The two lists are identical through subparagraph (g); subparagraph (ğ) was added to the Decision in August 2025 and has no counterpart in the consolidated text of Article 45(1).
| Subparagraph | Trigger | Amount recovered |
|---|---|---|
| (a) | Goods imported under suspension and not exported outside the Customs Territory or to a free zone | Duty not collected at import |
| (b) | Goods exported to a free zone but not onward-sold or otherwise disposed of as listed within three months of expiry | Duty not collected on that import |
| (c) | Imports exceeding the quantity authorised by the certificate or permit | Duty on the excess |
| (ç) | Operating supplies whose CIF import value exceeds 2% of realised FOB exports (10% for natural stone and precious metals and stones) | Duty on the part above the ratio |
| (d) | Unaltered goods whose CIF import value exceeds 1% of realised FOB exports | Duty on the part above the ratio |
| (e) | Drawback-system goods imported for export under A.TR or origin proof to the EU, Pan-Euro or Pan-Euro-Med cumulation partners or an FTA partner, and not exported in time | Duty not collected |
| (f) | Cancellation of the certificate or permit | Any duty not collected under it |
| (g) | Inability to evidence that the imported goods were used in the exported processed product | Duty not collected on import |
| (ğ) Decision only | Added in August 2025: export declaration found not to reflect reality because less imported input was used than committed | Duty on the input whose export is not established |
Three features of the closing paragraph matter. The duties are computed as of the import date, pinning the exchange rate and tariff to the original declaration as Article 114(1) of the Customs Law requires. The default surcharge under Article 207 has been accruing since registration of that declaration, and under Article 207(2) reduced security does not soften it — only the part actually given in cash escapes. And the Article 238 sanction comes in addition, not instead.
Subparagraph (g) has a safety valve that is easy to overlook: Article 45(6) allows the condition to be evidenced instead by a sworn financial adviser’s report drawn on the company’s stock and accounting records, where the link cannot be established for technical, scientific or administrative reasons.
Article 238: Two Very Different Penalties Wearing One Number
Almost every conversation about inward processing penalties begins with “twice the customs value” and stops there. That figure comes from Article 238(1)(a), a fine of twice the gümrüklenmiş değer — for imports, the CIF value plus customs duties, as defined in Article 3(26).
The next subparagraph changes the picture entirely. Article 238(1)(c) provides that where the regime rules have been breached but it is established that the goods covered by the regime, including in their state during processing or as a processed product, were not unlawfully removed from customs supervision, the fine is instead the customs duties on the imported goods plus interest at the default-surcharge rate for the period from registration of the regime declaration to the date of the finding. Article 238(2), added in 2019, then provides that if those goods are still not assigned a customs-approved treatment or use within sixty days of notification, a further fine equal to the customs duties is imposed. Article 238(3) fixes a floor by reference to Article 241(6).
So the difference between a multiple of the consignment value and a duty-plus-interest figure turns on evidence of where the goods are and have been. That is why Article 45(1) requires the closure letter to state not only the paragraph and subparagraph relied on but also, where established, whether the goods were exported as imported or as a processed product, released into free circulation, destroyed under customs supervision, abandoned to customs, or returned to origin. A letter silent on that point is worth challenging.
Misdeclaration, as opposed to non-performance, sits elsewhere. Under Article 234(2), where the declaration for goods under the regime is found on examination or post-clearance control to contain the differences described in Article 234(1), the fine is half the duty difference rather than the triple applied to free-circulation imports; Article 234(3) reduces it to ten per cent where the declarant discloses the discrepancy before the administration detects it — a strong reason to reconcile before the file goes in.
The Foreign-Currency Ratio and the Other Silent Sanction
Not every breach produces a duty bill. Article 45(4) of the Communiqué imposes an administrative consequence instead: where imported goods were in fact exported as processed product but the Ministry’s conditions were not observed, or where the foreign-currency usage ratio is exceeded even though all the imported input went into the exported product, the company loses reduced-security treatment for six months, and a repeat breach within two calendar years raises the security requirement for six months to as much as twice the duty arising on the import. Companies that never had reduced-security treatment face the raised ratio on each breach.
The ratio is set by the Ministry under Article 17(9) at not more than eighty per cent, rising to a maximum of one hundred per cent for certificates carrying a secondary processed agricultural product commitment; Article 38(4) computes it as CIF imports, excluding domestic purchases, over FOB exports. Article 17(10) lets the Ministry raise the ratios periodically or by sector, and directs that the new ratio governs when Article 45(4)(b) is applied.
The Tax Office’s Parallel Claim on Domestic Inputs
The customs file is not the only exposure. Where inputs were bought inside Türkiye under the deferral mechanism, Provisional Article 17 of VAT Law No. 3065 allows supplies of materials to be used in producing goods for export under the inward processing regime to be handled under Article 11(1)(c) until 31 December 2030, with the regime’s own periods substituted for the ordinary export period. Its final sentence is the one to plan around: where the export is not carried out in accordance with the conditions, the VAT not collected in time is recovered from the buyer, with a tax-loss penalty and default interest.
That claim originates with the tax office, follows tax procedure and runs on its own timetable, so it is entirely possible to settle the customs side of a sanctioned closure and meet a second assessment on the domestic purchases months later.
On the import side, VAT is not waived either. Article 49 of the VAT Law provides that VAT on goods handled with the customs duty secured is subject to the same treatment, so the import VAT sits inside the security and is released on closure rather than never arising — a point that matters when sizing the exposure. Article 5 of the Decision goes further for one category: on imports of operating supplies under the suspension system, VAT and special consumption tax are collected and trade policy measures are applied notwithstanding the regime.
Two Doors for Challenging an Inward Processing Closure
The remedy depends on which instrument was closed, and mixing them up loses the file.
For an inward processing certificate, Article 19 of Decision No. 2005/8391 allows the holder to object in writing to the Ministry of Trade (Directorate General of Exports) within one month of notification of the sanctioned closure, submitting all the information and documents the objection relies on. If the objection is found justified, the closure is withdrawn and reconstituted in light of what was produced.
For a customs-issued inward processing permit, the same provision routes the objection to Article 242 of the Customs Law: fifteen days from service, by written petition to the superior authority or, where there is none, to the same authority; a decision within thirty days; and, on rejection, the administrative judicial authorities at the place where the act was done. Article 242(3) protects a petition filed in time at the wrong office. The interaction between that objection and the settlement route in Article 244 — which covers administrative fines imposed by customs, suspends the objection and litigation clock, and is closed where the act is connected to the smuggling offences in Law No. 5607 — is set out in our note on customs administrative fines and the fifteen-day objection.
One limitation period frames all of it. Article 197(2) requires notification of duties never collected or under-collected to be made within three years of the date the customs obligation arose, though the same paragraph adds that bringing proceedings connected with the event suspends time, and Article 197(4) substitutes the longer criminal limitation periods where a prosecution has been brought over the same act.
Getting the Structure Right Before the Next Certificate
Most sanctioned closures are structural rather than accidental. A production model that regularly leaves inputs unconsumed at the end of a twelve-month cycle fits badly with a regime built around a fixed export commitment; the alternative worth testing is a free zone, where goods sit outside the customs territory without a commitment clock, as set out in our work on free zones and customs regimes and in the broader customs law practice. Where the difficulty is at the border instead — valuation or classification rather than the export commitment — the groundwork is in our guide to importing goods into Türkiye.
Where a certificate is already in trouble, the sequence is consistent: reconcile the import and export lines while the period is still running; file additional-time and justified-cause applications inside their three-month windows; if the export cannot be achieved, use the one- or two-month window to export, destroy, abandon or return the goods; disclose any declaration discrepancy before the administration finds it; and read a closure letter’s stated basis and its account of where the goods went before the objection period runs.
