turkishwaters

Liquid cargo shortage in Turkish ports: two pursuits, one deadline, and why the fine usually comes anyway

risk · 18 September 2026

A tanker discharges at Gebze, Mersin or Derince. The shore tanks come up short. The receivers say nothing. Three months later the local agent forwards a letter from Customs, and the Owners' first question is always the same: why are we being fined for a claim nobody made?

This note explains how liquid-cargo shortage works in Turkey, what the authorities will and will not accept, what it costs, and where the real decisions are. It is drawn from cases we have handled, most recently at Solventaş (Gebze), Alpet (Mersin) and Petrol Ofisi (Derince).

1. There are two shortage claims, and they are unrelated

The first is the ordinary cargo claim: receivers or their insurers say less cargo was delivered than the bill of lading shows. That claim is governed by the contract of carriage and the Turkish Commercial Code, and it is the one everyone expects.

The second is the one that surprises. When the outturn at the shore reception facility falls below the manifested quantity by more than the allowable tolerance, Customs opens a deficiency pursuit ("eksiklik takibatı") on its own initiative under Article 237 of the Customs Law (No. 4458). Its purpose is not to compensate anyone. It exists to penalise the risk that the missing cargo entered free circulation in Turkey without duty being paid.

In our experience the receivers frequently raise no claim at all while Customs pursues the full amount. The reason is almost always commercial — the sale contract has already allocated the shortage between seller and buyer — but it means Owners cannot rely on the absence of a cargo claim as any comfort.

2. How the customs pursuit starts

On completion of discharge the receivers' surveyor measures the shore tanks and the outturn is reported to Customs. Where the short-landed quantity exceeds the tolerance — 0.5% for diesel and similar distillates, 0.4% for fuel oil — the local Customs Directorate serves a pursuit letter on the vessel's local agent.

The letter asks for an explanation of the shortage and, typically, three documents: the pre-loading tank report, the post-loading ullage report and the post-loading draft survey.

The clock: the explanation is due within 3 months of the letter. A further 3-month extension can be requested, and a final 1-month extension after that — seven months in total. Each extension is obtained by a short letter from the agent. Nothing more sophisticated is needed, and nothing more sophisticated helps. The period runs from service of the pursuit letter, not from the outturn (Council of State, 7th Chamber, E.2001/5001 K.2004/1386).

3. What Customs will accept — and why it is so hard to give

This is the part that decides most cases. Customs does not want an explanation in the ordinary sense. Under the Customs Regulation (Art. 122–123) and the related General Communiqués, the cause of the shortage must be evidenced by an official document issued or endorsed by a state authority:

In practice this is a short-shipment certificate from the load port, stamped by a foreign government body, for a shortage that the load port has no interest in confirming. It is rarely obtainable, and when it is, it must be apostilled or consularised and sworn-translated. Where the shortage arises from ROB — cargo that was on board and simply did not pump out — the document is irrelevant by definition, because there was no short-shipment to certify.

We have not yet seen a case where the ullage and draft documents alone, with a well-drafted explanation, closed a pursuit. Customs is strict on form. Owners should assume that if the endorsed document cannot be produced, the fine will be issued.

4. What is actually levied

Once the explanation period runs out, two authorities assess separately:

Customs Office — a customs fine under Article 237, equal to the import duties attributable to the short-landed quantity above tolerance, plus an irregularity fine (Art. 241).

Tax Office — the principal tax that would have been due had the cargo entered free circulation (VAT and, for fuels, special consumption tax), interest on that tax, and a tax-loss penalty.

All of it is issued in the name of the local agent, who passes it to Owners under the agency relationship. That is why, from the carrier's side, the exposure sits with Owners even though no document bears their name.

The amounts are hard to predict. The cargo value used by Customs is not always the invoice value, and agents' estimates vary widely — in one recent Mersin case the same agent quoted USD 40–50,000 and then USD 98,000 for the same shortage within a week. The only reliable figure is the one Customs eventually issues.

5. The three options once the fine is issued

Option Effect Deadline
Pay early 25% reduction on the customs fine (Misdemeanours Law No. 5326, Art. 17/6) within 1 month of service
Apply for reconciliation ("uzlaşma", Customs Law Art. 244; Tax Procedure Law Suppl. Art. 1) typically 50–65% reduction on the customs fine and the tax-loss penalty on application after service
Object to the Regional Directorate (Art. 242); then tax court within 30 days of rejection within 15 days

We almost always recommend reconciliation. Two things to understand about it:

It does not touch the principal tax or the interest. Reconciliation and the early-payment discount reduce only the customs fine and the tax-loss penalty. The underlying tax is payable in full.

Reconciliation and the early-payment discount cannot be combined (Art. 244/6). Pick one.

There are two meetings, not one. Customs and the Tax Office reconcile separately, on separate dates, and the Tax Office meeting is often weeks after the Customs one.

A worked example from a completed Derince case (VLSFO, ROB-related shortage, 2026), in Turkish lira:

Item Issued After reconciliation
Customs fine + irregularity fine ~592,000 ~237,000 (−60%)
Principal tax + interest ~268,000 ~268,000 (no change)
Tax-loss penalty ~585,000 ~337,000 (−42%)

The reconciled total was roughly 58% of the issued total. Note that the untouchable tax and interest made up nearly a third of what was finally paid.

6. Timing is a decision, not a formality

The instinct is to take every extension — seven months of breathing room. That is often wrong.

Interest accrues on the Tax Office side from the outset; it does not accrue on the customs fine. If the endorsed document is not realistically obtainable, waiting out the extensions costs money and settles nothing. Where a letter of undertaking has already been given to the agent (see below), the sooner the fine is issued and reconciled, the sooner that security is released.

Our usual advice where the document is unobtainable: do not wait. Have the agent request issuance of the fine, then reconcile.

7. The agent's security demand — before any pursuit exists

A pattern we now see regularly: discharge completes, the shortage is visible on the outturn, and the local agent — often the charterers' agent, not Owners' — refuses to complete departure formalities until Owners or the Club provide security for the future customs liability.

At that moment there is no pursuit, no fine, no assessment, and no legal basis for holding the vessel. But there is also no official obstacle, which means the Harbour Master has nothing to override. The agent simply does not lodge the paperwork. Changing agent mid-call is possible in principle — the Master can complain to the Harbour Master — but in practice it takes longer than settling.

What the agent wants is not a standard club LOU. Because the fine will be issued in the agent's name, they want a reimbursement undertaking, structurally closer to pollution wordings. Points that have mattered in negotiation:

8. What Owners can do before it happens

General information from cases we have handled. Not legal advice. Figures are rounded and illustrative; every assessment depends on the product, the cargo value Customs applies, and the Directorate involved.

← all insights