Format Discrepancy in REX Statement on Origin: Article 241 of the Customs Law Applies Instead of Penalty Decision and Additional Assessment

Format Discrepancy in REX Statement on Origin: Customs Law Article 241 Should Apply Instead of Penalty Decision and Additional Assessment

Format discrepancies in statements on origin issued under the Registered Exporter System, known as REX, had in some cases been interpreted in a way that could trigger additional assessment and penalty proceedings in customs procedures. In this regard, an important clarification on what must be observed in practice was set out in a circular dated October 21, 2025, issued by the Directorate General of International Agreements and European Union Affairs under the Ministry of Trade.

The circular recalls in summary that the presentation of duly issued statements on origin is required for Turkey to benefit from reduced tariff rates under the Generalized System of Preferences, referred to as GSP. However, since the statement on origin texts used in the REX system may in some countries be drafted with a reference to the EU format, they may not be word-for-word identical to the standard text used in Turkey.

In such cases, it is not considered appropriate to directly invalidate a statement on origin solely on the grounds of a format discrepancy. It is emphasized that where there is no doubt regarding the correspondence of the statement with the goods and the products match the goods presented to customs, such minor discrepancies should not in themselves constitute grounds for rejecting or invalidating the document.

The most critical point is as follows. It is stated that where a format discrepancy exists in a REX statement on origin, the matter should be treated as an irregularity under Article 241 of the Customs Law, rather than the customs administration issuing a penalty decision and an additional assessment.

This clarification is of considerable importance in reducing inconsistencies in field application and in particular in preventing importers from being unnecessarily exposed to penalty and additional assessment risks.