Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Violations and Misdeclaration of Liability, Indemnity Risks and Administrative Sanctions in Türkiye

When dangerous goods are transported by sea, misdeclaration goes beyond mere "paperwork errors"; it can lead to consequences such as ship fires, explosions, toxic gas releases, environmental pollution, port operational shutdowns, container quarantine, and cascading commercial losses. Therefore, dangerous goods compliance is a high-cost risk area for exporters/importers, carriers, agents, freight forwarders, terminal operators, and insurers .

The IMDG (International Maritime Dangerous Goods) Code is the international technical-operational “master set of rules” for the safe carriage of packaged dangerous goods at sea. It is considered an extension of the mandatory regime under Chapter VII of SOLAS, and compliance with IMDG rules is essential for the carriage of packaged dangerous goods.

Below, the following are (i) the legal framework of IMDG compliance in Turkey, (ii) the most common violations in practice and “declaration error” scenarios, (iii) responsibility sharing and recourse routes in the sender-carrier-terminal-forwarder axis, (iv) administrative sanctions and defense/evidence strategy.

1) What does "dangerous cargo" mean under the IMDG framework?

IMDG imposes detailed obligations under headings such as classification, UN number, proper shipping name, packing standard, marking, segregation and stowage, documentation (DG declaration, container/vehicle packing certificate, etc.), and emergency procedures. In Türkiye, this framework is implemented through both international treaty obligations and domestic legislation.

In Turkey, the maritime transport and handling of dangerous goods the Regulation on the Maritime Transport and Loading Safety of Dangerous Goods . The regulation covers the handling of dangerous goods on Turkish-flagged vessels and at coastal facilities, their notification and inspection, stowage/transportation/unloading processes, and also strait transit permits for specific IMDG classes.

2) The basic legal framework in Türkiye: Turkish Commercial Code + Regulation regime

A) The sender's obligation to "declare dangerous goods" (Turkish Commercial Code, Article 861)

In Turkey, the most critical starting point in terms of transportation law is Article 861 of the Turkish Commercial Code: If dangerous goods are to be transported, the sender is obliged to notify the carrier in a timely, clear/understandable , and written manner about the type of danger and, if necessary, the precautions to be taken.

This provision states the following in "error of declaration" disputes:

Correct classification of hazardous materials .
Correct identification (UN No. + proper shipping name + class/sub-risk + packing group, etc.),
And providing written notification to the carrier is the primary risk area of the sender.

B) Direct reference to IMDG and operational requirements within the scope of the regulation

The regulation concretizes IMDG compliance at the technical level. For example:

According to the IMDG, substances and objects prohibited from being transported by sea cannot be transported by sea
Mandatory UN-certified packaging for the transport of dangerous goods
The Container/Vehicle Packing Certificatemust be completed and signed; presented before/upon arrival at the port; and a copy must be placed on the container door.
Rules such as the requirement for ships carrying dangerous goods to possess specific IMDG documents are clearly regulated

C) Coastal facilities and compliance infrastructure: TYUB and TMGD

In practice, a significant portion of violations are detected at the "port gate". The regulation mandates that coastal facilities handling hazardous cargo obtain and maintain a Hazardous Cargo Compliance Certificate (HCCC)

In addition, coastal facilities are subject to obligations such as employing/contracting the services of a Hazardous Materials Safety Advisor (TMGD) authorized under the IMDG and reporting at specific intervals

3) What is a "misdeclaration" and why is it the biggest risk factor?

Declaration error is the false, incomplete, or misleading declaration of the hazardous nature of a shipment. In practice, three main motivations are observed:

Freight/cost reduction: Avoiding costs associated with hazardous materials, special handling, storage, and classification rules.
Expediting operations: DG booking confirmation, document verification, avoiding additional waiting times.
Lack of knowledge and weak internal control: Failure to read MSDS/SDS, incorrect UN number, incorrect class/packaging group, misinterpretation of "limited quantity," issuing documents with outdated templates, etc.

Important point: A misdeclaration isn't just "no DG declaration." The following also count as misdeclarations:

UN No/proper shipping name discrepancy,
Incorrect class or secondary risk not being written,
Incorrect selection of the packing group (PG),
Omitting information about marine pollutants,
False completion of the container packing certificate,
Label/plate size-location-durability discrepancy,
Internal packing, violation of segregation/stacking rules.

Globally, carriers view misdeclaration commercial and safety risk ; therefore, contractual "misdeclaration fee" practices have become widespread. For example, Maersk openly declares that it defines incorrect/incomplete/false declarations of hazardous materials as "misdeclaration" and applies a specific administrative fee schedule. (Similar practices may be seen on different routes with varying amounts; in some carriers, the fees per container can be very high.)

4) Most common IMDG violations: “critical error” map

The following are the most common risk areas encountered in port inspections, transport document checks, and insurance registration files in Türkiye:

(1) Incorrect classification / incorrect UN number

The product's trade name does not match the hazard class listed in the SDS.
Broad definitions such as "solvent / adhesive / cleaning agent" can obscure the correct UN mapping.

(2) Using a trade name instead of “Proper Shipping Name”

According to IMDG and SOLAS principles, a trade name alone is not sufficient; the use of the correct shipping name is expected. This approach is reinforced in Turkish regulations through references to IMDG documents.

(3) Violation of the UN certified packaging requirement

Failure to use UN-approved packaging increases the risk of both administrative penalties and civil liability, particularly for liquids and reactive products.

(4) Container/Vehicle Packing Certificate issues

The certificate was never issued,
Signed by unauthorized/untrained personnel,
false statement regarding container internal stacking,
Failure to submit the certificate to the port on time
is a clear area of liability under Turkish regulations.

(5) Lack of signs/labels/marking

If a container lacks a hazard warning label or if the UN number/appropriate shipping name is incorrect, it may be directly identified during unscheduled port inspections.

(6) Segregation & stowage violations

Errors such as stacking incompatible classrooms side-by-side, placing them near a heat source, and failing to meet ventilation requirements dramatically increase the risk of fire and toxic release.

(7) Weight declaration / VGM discrepancies (secondary but practically critical)

Even without dangerous goods, discrepancies between the verified gross weight (GWW/VGM) and the actual weight of a loaded container pose a serious safety risk. In Türkiye, administrative fines and even suspension of operating licenses are implemented in this area.

5) Who is responsible? Sender – carrier – terminal – forwarder

A) Sender's responsibility (core risk area)

Article 861 of the Turkish Commercial Code explicitly places the burden of notification for dangerous goods on the sender.
In practice, this translates to the following:

Additional costs arising from incorrect/incomplete declarations (port storage, repackaging, destruction, expert report, delay costs),
Compensation that the carrier is obliged to pay to third parties (ship crew, other cargo owners, terminal),
The insurer's (e.g., P&I or cargo insurer) subrogation claims
may result in the shipper being the first target in the subrogation chain.

B) Carrier's responsibility (care + operational safety)

The carrier cannot always dismiss all risk by saying "I didn't know." The regulation emphasizes that parties must take measures in accordance with IMDG, considering foreseeable risks.
A typical question for the carrier is: the document control and acceptance process been properly implemented, and is the ship/terminal operation compliant with DG?

C) Terminal/shore facility responsibility (TYUB–TMGD–guide–training chain)

The coastal facility's TYUB (Traffic Safety and Health Certificate) obligation and TMGD (Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor) reporting procedure create direct accountability during inspections.
Specifically:

educational records
Dangerous goods handling guide,
Ensuring fairness in the field
determines the risk of administrative sanctions.

D) Forwarder/transportation broker (the “critical node” in the flow of documents and declarations)

Since forwarders often manage DG declarations, bookings, and document flow, they may be drawn into "negligence" discussions regarding misrepresentation claims. Here, the contract text, the chain of authority/instruction, and SDS/label/packaging control records are crucial.

6) Administrative sanctions in Türkiye: process, amounts, increases

A) The main logic of the inspection and penalty process

The regulation states that inspections can be carried out through the port authority and authorized institutions; and that an administrative fine decision report can be issued if a violation is detected

The regulation also stipulates that in certain cases, the handling operation may be suspended until the deficiency is rectified . This is a risk of “operational paralysis,” independent of any fine.

B) Basis for administrative fines and annual updates

It is stipulated that administrative fines will be applied in accordance with the relevant article of Decree Law No. 655 in case of violation of the Regulation's provisions.
It is also stipulated that the fines and maximum fees are updated annually according to the revaluation logic.

Example (from official tariffs): In the administrative fine schedules published for 2023, it is seen that the fines for some violations against the ship owner hundreds of thousands of TL (for example, a fine of 222,930 TL).

Note: The penalty applied to each offense varies depending on the specific case; also, the amounts are updated annually.

C) Double penalties for serious/“intentional” violations and their connection to the Law on Minor Offenses

With the 2025 amendments, the regulation text explicitly stipulates that penalties will be doubled for violations that seriously threaten life, property, the environment, and navigation safety , or for deliberate violations . Furthermore, the notification and administrative sanction procedures refer to the provisions of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors

D) Failure to comply with notification obligations

The guidelines regarding dangerous goods declarations and special permit processes state that failure to comply with notification obligations will result in administrative fines in accordance with the relevant regulations.

7) Evidence and defense strategy: "Proof" is as important as "Was there a violation?"

In IMDG/dangerous goods disputes, the outcome often hinges on the answers to these questions:

(1) Is the classification and declaration chain correct?

SDS/MSDS (up-to-date?), technical data sheet, product composition,
UN number and proper shipping name verification
DG declaration, container packing certificate,
Label/sign photos (before and after uploading),
Training documentation (such as IMDG 1.3 training)
is critical to demonstrating the sender's standard of "diligence".

(2) “By whose instruction, and who organized it?”

The instruction and approval chain (email, booking confirmations, form revision records) between the forwarder, sender, warehouse, and packaging team is at the heart of the dispute.

(3) Is there a technical basis for the port/carrier determinations?

The allegation of misrepresentation often involves:

port unscheduled inspection
container opening report,
sampling,
photo/video,
weighing/VGM records
. The procedure used for conducting audits is also important.

(4) Are the damage items correct?

In misdeclaration files, "damage" is often not limited to physical harm alone:

ship delay
other loads being affected,
port area closure,
repackaging/labeling,
destruction,
Expert and supervision costs,
The carrier's contractual fees/penalties
come into play. Carriers' misdeclaration fee practices create an additional layer of risk in this respect.

8) Quick "adaptation checklist" in practice (short but effective)

For the sender/exporter:

Is the product SDS/MSDS up-to-date? Has the UN match been confirmed?
Is the DG declaration template compatible with the current IMDG format?
Was UN-certified packaging used?
Was the container packing certificate signed by the correct person and submitted to the port on time?
Is the label/plate – the UN number – correct on the container?
If there is a claim of "limited quantity / excepted quantity," is the supporting documentation ready?

For the terminal/shore facility:

Is TYUB valid?
Are the TMGD reports and training records complete?
Are site separation rules, storage area regulations, and emergency plans actually being implemented?
Are the deficiencies identified during the inspections recurring? (Recurring deficiencies may lead to more severe penalties.)

For the carrier/agent:

Is the DG booking confirmation compliant with document verification?
Are the required DG documents available on board the vessel?
Are VGM/DBA compliance and weighing deviations being monitored?

Conclusion: In "dangerous goods" files, the most costly mistake is a declaration error that starts small

In the transportation of dangerous goods, errors in declaration directly trigger the sender's notification obligation under the Turkish Commercial Code and compliance responsibilities under the International Dangerous Goods Transport Convention (IMDG) at the administrative level. In Turkish practice, the inspection and penalty mechanism has significant deterrent power, resulting in consequences such as operational suspension and doubling of penalties for serious/intentional violations.

maritime transport, administrative fine, container shipping, regres, dangerous goods

Law Articles

Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Violations and Misdeclaration of Liability, Indemnity Risks and Administrative Sanctions in Türkiye