Council of State Ruling on Surveillance Price: Excess Customs Duties Cannot Be Reclaimed Under Article 211

Council of State Ruling on Surveillance Price: Excess Customs Duties Cannot Be Reclaimed Under Article 211

The ruling of the Council of State Tax Chamber Plenary, published in the Official Gazette dated November 13, 2025, constitutes an important precedent regarding the refund of customs duties paid due to surveillance practices. The ruling clarifies in particular which avenue should be pursued in cases where the operator voluntarily increased the declared customs value because a surveillance document could not be obtained.

What is the subject of the Council of State ruling?

The ruling addresses applications submitted on the grounds that excess duties were paid as a result of the operator increasing the declared value in order to reach the surveillance value for goods imported under surveillance practices. The divergence of opinions between different Regional Administrative Courts was resolved by the Council of State Tax Chamber Plenary.

Critical outcome following Article 211

As is known, Article 211 of Customs Law No. 4458 was amended on July 18, 2021. Following this amendment, a framework emerged whereby refund or remission requests under Article 211 would not be accepted for duties assessed as a result of the customs value of goods subject to trade policy measures being increased through the operator's own declaration.

The Council of State ruling confirms this approach and concludes that for declarations registered with a reservation after July 18, 2021, a refund application under Article 211 cannot be made.

What should importers do?

A notable point in the ruling is the following. While the Council of State indicates that the refund route under Article 211 is closed, it also separately assesses that there is no obstacle to using the appeal route under Article 242 of the Customs Law.

What does this mean?

For importers who believe they have paid excess duties due to surveillance practices, even where the declaration was registered with a reservation, pursuing the appeal and litigation process under Article 242 rather than seeking a refund under Article 211 becomes more critical.