UNDECLARED GOODS IN POSTAL/EXPRESS CARGO SHIPMENTS

UNDECLARED GOODS IN POSTAL/EXPRESS CARGO SHIPMENTS: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE, THE RECIPIENT OR THE SENDER?

As international e-commerce and "door-to-door" cargo flows increase, one of the most frequently encountered risks at customs has become the issue of "undeclared goods" (undeclared/incorrectly declared/products not appearing on the invoice inside the package). While this sometimes only results in tax penalties , in other cases the case can turn into a criminal investigation under the Law No. 5607 on Combating Smuggling .

1) HOW DOES THE DECLARATION MECHANISM WORK IN "POSTAL" AND "EXPRESS CARGO"?

In postal/express cargo shipments, transactions are often handled by the operator on behalf of the recipient: the cargo operator carries out the declaration processes on behalf of the recipient and may request documents/payments from you. The Ministry of Trade's "Postal and Express Cargo Exemption" statement also indicates that , within parameters such as personal use , non-commercial nature , gross weight of 30 kg , and a value range of 30-1500 euros , the operator can process the transaction by providing a detailed declaration on behalf of the recipient

The critical point here is: Who is the "declarant" at customs? The fundamental principle regarding customs obligations is that in imports, the obligor is the declarant; in cases of indirect representation, the person on whose behalf the declaration is made is also considered obligor. Furthermore, the approach that the representative's liability in indirect representation they knew/should have known the incorrect data due to their profession also falls within this framework.

Conclusion: On the administrative side, the "I wasn't aware" defense isn't always an automatic shield ; because customs obligations and tax/penalty calculations are based on who the declaration is attributed to

2) WHAT IS "UNDECLARED GOODS"? THE 4 MOST COMMON SCENARIOS

In practice, we encounter the concept of undeclared goods under four headings:

1. includes extra items/gifts in the package
   . The seller adds "extra" items that aren't on the invoice. The buyer may not have genuinely requested them, but they are actually in the package.

2. Incorrect valuation / incomplete invoicing / undervaluation:
   The value is declared lower than it actually is, based on the logic of "let's show it as cheaper"; if customs detects this, additional taxes and administrative penalties will be imposed.

3. The wrong category/description/misleading product name
   might be written as "Accessory," but the actual item delivered is of a different nature.

4. Prohibited/restricted goods
   : The shipment contains items that cannot enter through the simplified procedure or are subject to special permission; in this case, the process may lead to a "return/sending back-disposal-confiscation" discussion.

In all these scenarios, we come back to the same question: Will this action remain administrative, or will it fall under Law 5607? This is where the distinction between "sender or receiver responsible" becomes sharp.

3) ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY: TAX, FINE, REFUND/LIQUIDATION

At the administrative level, the customs administration looks at: Under which regime, with which declaration, and with which documents were the goods processed?
Legislation is also frequently updated in the postal/express cargo channel; for example, the Circular contains announcements/summaries indicating that changes were made within 2025 and published in the Official Gazette.

Administrative consequences typically include the following:

• Tax difference (value/origin/type adjustments),

• Administrative fine (depending on the type of false/incomplete declaration),

• The import of the goods is not permitted (restricted/prohibited goods),

• Return/refund or liquidation/confiscation processes (depending on the nature of the item).

The most critical risk here for the recipient is this: even if they escape criminal liability by saying "I didn't order it," in the administrative process (tax-penalty-refund) the recipient of the package . Therefore, the defense must be built on two levels: an administrative level and a criminal level.

4) CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE KEY WORD IN LAW NO. 5607 IS "INTENT" (KNOWLEDGE/WILLINGNESS)

In smuggling cases, the key threshold determining whether the offender is the sender or the receiver is whether the receiver acted knowingly of the undeclared goods and whether the act conforms to the type of crime

4.1. Is the fact that it was "addressed in my name" sufficient grounds for conviction on its own?

The Supreme Court's practice frequently emphasizes the principle that the defendant benefits from the doubt , particularly in cases involving "goods found in a package/cargo": The mere fact of the package-delivery does not always prove the recipient's intentional participation in the crime ; evidence establishing an "intentional link" is sought in the case

For example, the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled that, in the case of a defendant who claimed to be unaware of the smuggled cigarettes in the box delivered by the courier, there was insufficient conclusive evidence for conviction and therefore acquittal was warranted instead (2018/1801 E., 2020/19491 K.).

4.2. But does "I didn't know" always work?

No. In another decision by the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the defendant's defense of "I received it on behalf of someone else" was evaluated; no problem was found regarding conviction, considering the commercial quantity/nature of the goods; however, an error in the assessment of favorable laws and the determination of the sentence (2022/235 E., 2024/5167 K.). This decision summarizes the defendant's statement that "I received a shipment belonging to someone else" and the witness testimony.

This means that the same defense ("I was unaware") yields different results from case to case. What is critical the objective set of evidence that supports or refutes the defense .

5) 7 EVIDENCE QUESTIONS THAT SOLVE THE "RECIPIENT OR SENDER?" QUESTION

In practice, responsibility is often determined by the answers to the following questions:

1. Who placed the order? (platform registration, email, user account, IP/data trail)

2. Who made the payment? (card/account statements, payment provider records)

3. Who created the shipping instructions? (seller messages, sender statement, shipping label)

4. Who appears as the recipient of the package and who received it? (signature, identity verification, camera)

5. Whose phone number/email is on the package? (line owner, usage, HTS)

6. Are there similar shipments? (Recurring shipping patterns reinforce "knowledge")

7. Is the "undeclared" item hidden in the package or openly displayed? (signs of intentional concealment)

these questions need to be clarified, especially HTS (Historical Telephone Records) and identification : The 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned an acquittal in a case where smuggled cigarettes were found in a seemingly addressed package, because the HTS records were not obtained and the identification procedure regarding the other defendant was not carried out (Case No. 2021/13959 E., Decision No. 2025/705 K., January 16, 2025).

Accountability is not limited to "the name on the label"; the investigation must be completed with evidence of communication, connections, and organization.

6) SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF MAIL/CARGO: PROCEDURAL ERROR CAN CHANGE THE FATE OF THE FILE

Undeclared goods are sometimes seized at customs, and sometimes during cargo distribution in the domestic market. At this point, the search and seizure procedure becomes very critical.

The postal seizure regime under Article 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes safeguards such as the sealing of seized mail and its delivery to the competent authority, and the inability of law enforcement to open the package "on their own" under any circumstances.

Practical conclusion: The questions "how was the package opened, who opened it, under what order was it opened, are there records and chain of custody?" are the backbone of the defense.

7) THE THREE MOST COMMON SCENARIOS IN PRACTICE AND THEIR LEGAL READING

Scenario A — “There was too much product, I didn’t want it.”

• Administrative risk: Taxes/procedures may arise because the item is included in the package.

• Criminal risk: Conviction under Article 5607 is difficult unless the buyer's knowledge/will and "organizational link" are proven; however, the defense must be supported by evidence (order screenshots, seller correspondence, product list, payment details).

Scenario B — “It was sent in my name, but it’s not my account/number.”

• The possibility of identity misuse arises.

• Here, evidence such as phone calls, emails, delivery signatures, and HTS (Historical Telephone Records) solves the question of "who did it?". The Supreme Court's approach of "no decision can be made without obtaining HTS records" is therefore valuable.

Scenario C — “I just received it; it belonged to someone else.”

• This defense is sometimes accepted, sometimes not.

• In its 2024 decision, the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals evaluated this type of defense; however, the outcome of the decision was essentially the application of a more favorable law and penalty .

• In another decision by the 7th Criminal Chamber, the conviction was overturned due to lack of conclusive evidence regarding the defense that "the delivery man was unaware of the cigarettes in the box he delivered."

8) “PROTECTION” CHECKLIST (LEGAL AWARENESS)

A record-keeping system to prevent it from turning into a criminal accusation:

• Order list (which items are included/not included)

• Invoice/bill of lading and vendor correspondence

• Proof of payment (which product's price, which amount)

• If possible, provide a video/record of the delivery (package unboxing, missing/excess items).

• Do the phone number/email on the package label match your records?

• In case of suspicion, immediately notify the operator in writing and, if necessary, the legal channels.

9) PRECEDENT-SETTING SUPREME COURT DECISIONS (SELECTED)

1. Supreme Court 7th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2018/1801 E., Decision No. 2020/19491 K. (December 23, 2020):
   regarding the defense that "the courier was unaware of the smuggled cigarettes in the box," acquittal is required.

2. Supreme Court 7th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2022/235 E., Decision No. 2024/5167 K. (May 14, 2024):
   The defendant's defense of "I received it on behalf of someone else" and the sequence of events were evaluated; the reason for overturning the decision is mainly favorable law/mixed application and the determination of the sentence (the fact of cargo delivery is summarized in the decision text).

3. The 7th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Case No. 2021/13959 E., Decision No. 2025/705 K. (January 16, 2025): In a case of seizure of smuggled goods in a cargo package, the acquittal was deemed insufficient due to the lack of investigation to determine the defendant's connection, such as conducting HTS (Historical Traffic Data) checks and identification procedures with respect to the other defendant .
   

CONCLUSION: NO SINGLE-SENTENCE ANSWER—BUT THERE IS A CLEAR TEST

On the administrative side , customs examines the declaration/representation relationship; in the postal/express cargo channel, the process often proceeds with the recipient because the operator can process the transaction on your behalf. 
On the criminal side , the Supreme Court's stance is clear: the distinction between "recipient/sender" is established with concrete evidence demonstrating intent and connection; in some cases, insufficient evidence necessitates acquittal, while in others, incomplete investigation constitutes grounds for reversal.