Turkey’s passenger‑vehicle import taxes are commonly characterized as high because customs duty, Special Consumption Tax (ÖTV), Value Added Tax (VAT), and additional financial obligations can all apply to the same vehicle. For electric vehicles, battery‑related dangerous‑goods rules add another layer of complexity beyond standard vehicle DG handling.
This article compares the cost and risk profile of shipping an EV versus a gasoline car to Turkey in 2026, using West Coast Shipping’s guides on shipping electric vehicles to Turkey, the Turkey duties & VAT guide, and the Turkey country page as the main references.
This article is for general information only and is not tax or legal advice. Always obtain a broker or professional tax calculation based on current Turkish law and Official Gazette tables before acting.
Both EVs and gasoline cars face the same basic structure in Turkey:
Customs duty
ÖTV (Special Consumption Tax)
VAT
Additional financial obligations on certain imports
How each layer applies differs by drivetrain, engine size or power, origin, and GTIP/HS classification.
Customs duty on passenger cars is set in Türkiye’s customs tariff and depends primarily on GTIP/HS code, vehicle origin, any preferential or free‑trade regime, and additional measures in force.
Importers should treat any generic percentage as illustrative only and must always confirm the applicable customs‑duty rate for their GTIP and origin using Türkiye’s current tariff schedule or official online tariff lookup.
ÖTV is usually the largest tax. The Turkey duties & VAT guide presents simplified bands for typical cases, with:
Combustion‑engine passenger vehicles shown in very high bands (commonly summarized as up to about 220% in some combinations of engine displacement and price).
Electric vehicles in common bands of 25–75% based on motor power and price.
Plug‑in hybrids typically falling into a 45–85% range.
Professional Turkish tax and legal bulletins describing recent SCT/ÖTV updates follow the same broad pattern: EV SCT beginning at 25% for certain lower‑power, lower‑price bands, then rising in steps, and ICE SCT split into multiple high bands linked mainly to engine displacement and tax base.
The only binding structure is what appears in the Official Gazette law/decision text and annex tables. Any EV or ICE ÖTV range used here is a simplified guide; the exact band for your vehicle must be confirmed from current Official Gazette tables or via a Turkish customs broker.
VAT on imports is currently applied at a standard rate of 20% for most goods, including many passenger‑vehicle imports, on a cumulative base that includes the customs value plus certain taxes and charges.
Türkiye’s standard VAT rate is 20% (rates can change by decree), so confirm the current import VAT rate at shipment time rather than relying on older examples.
In addition to customs, ÖTV, and VAT, Turkish authorities adopted additional financial obligations (extra duties) on some passenger‑vehicle imports in 2025 via an Official Gazette decision and annex tables. Official and professional summaries explain that:
The measure imposes extra, percentage‑based charges and sometimes minimum amounts for certain GTIP 87.03 passenger cars from specified origins.
The annexes define which GTIP lines and origins are covered, the relevant percentages and minimums, and the mechanism for entry into force.
Because there are several layers of information—Official Gazette decision text, annex tables, Ministry announcements, and public summaries—West Coast Shipping recommends that importers:
Treat any published “25% / 30%” or “USD 6,000 / 7,000 / 8,500” figures as indicative only until checked.
Ask a Turkish customs broker to:
Identify the vehicle’s exact GTIP and origin.
Check the current Official Gazette decision and annex tables governing additional financial obligations.
Confirm whether the vehicle is in scope and, if so, the precise rate, minimum, and effective date that apply.
If you have not reviewed the Official Gazette text for your GTIP and origin, do not treat any generic percentage or floor as final.
Exact rates and tax bases vary by GTIP, origin, and current law, but it is still useful to see how layered percentages can compound on a notional vehicle value. The examples below are illustrative only and use round numbers for clarity; they are not a representation of the statutory rate or legal tax base for any specific vehicle.
Assume you are comparing two USD 40,000 vehicles shipped in containers from the USA to Turkey:
Vehicle A: a battery‑electric sedan.
Vehicle B: a 1.6L gasoline sedan.
For illustration, suppose that—purely as a worked example—you plug in:
Customs duty: 10%.
Additional financial obligation: 30% for the EV, 25% for the gasoline car.
ÖTV: 50% for the EV, 100% for the gasoline car.
VAT: 20%.
These figures are not a quote and are not a statutory calculation—use them only to understand compounding.
CIF value: 40,000.
Customs duty (10% of 40,000): 4,000.
Additional obligation (30% of 40,000): 12,000.
Modeled base for ÖTV (value + duty + additional): 56,000.
ÖTV at 50% of 56,000: 28,000.
Modeled base for VAT (value + duty + additional + ÖTV): 84,000.
VAT at 20% of 84,000: 16,800.
Illustrative taxes and obligations: 4,000 + 12,000 + 28,000 + 16,800 = 60,800.
Illustrative landed cost (CIF + taxes): 100,800.
This structure assumes, for modeling purposes, that the additional financial obligation is included in the bases used for ÖTV and VAT. For specific GTIP lines, Turkish law may define those bases differently, which is why a broker calculation is essential.
CIF value: 40,000.
Customs duty (10% of 40,000): 4,000.
Additional obligation (25% of 40,000): 10,000.
Modeled base for ÖTV (value + duty + additional): 54,000.
ÖTV at 100% of 54,000: 54,000.
Modeled base for VAT (value + duty + additional + ÖTV): 108,000.
VAT at 20% of 108,000: 21,600.
Illustrative taxes and obligations: 4,000 + 10,000 + 54,000 + 21,600 = 89,600.
Illustrative landed cost: 129,600.
In this example, doubling the ÖTV rate for the gasoline car (versus the EV) has a larger impact on the total than the difference in additional‑obligation percentages.
If you repeat the exercise with a lower‑value compact gasoline car (for example, CIF USD 35,000) in a lower ICE ÖTV band—say 90% instead of 100%—while keeping other assumptions the same, the difference between EV and ICE narrows substantially. The gasoline car still pays more tax than the EV in that example, but by a smaller margin.
The practical lessons are:
Lower EV SCT bands and higher ICE bands tend to favour EVs on landed cost.
When EV and ICE SCT bands sit closer together, the outcome becomes more sensitive to additional financial obligations, customs duty, and any preferential treatment.
These examples do not represent statutory bases and may not match how your GTIP line is assessed; they are meant only to show how layered percentages can compound.
EVs can retain a relative tax advantage over gasoline cars, especially in SCT bands where ICE rates are much higher than EV rates.
That advantage is not guaranteed; for compact, lower‑value vehicles, the gap can narrow once additional financial obligations are included.
A Turkish customs broker, using current Official Gazette tables and tariff data, is essential for precise EV vs gasoline comparisons.
Costs are only part of the decision. The operational risk profile when shipping EVs and gasoline cars to Turkey also differs, especially around dangerous‑goods (DG) classification and documentation.
Both EVs and gasoline cars fall under dangerous‑goods frameworks, but with different entries and expectations.
Often shipped under entries such as UN 3166 – Vehicle, flammable liquid powered in IMDG and related codes, or handled under IMDG vehicle special provisions when eligibility criteria are met.
Focus is on fuel‑system integrity and general vehicle safety rather than lithium‑battery hazards.
IMDG Code Amendment 42‑24 (2024 edition) introduces dedicated UN numbers for battery‑powered vehicles and becomes mandatory from 1 January 2026, with voluntary application allowed from 1 January 2025. Under current industry practice:
Lithium‑ion EVs are commonly declared as UN 3556 – Vehicle, lithium ion battery powered when shipped with installed traction batteries.
Other chemistries use related entries (for example, lithium‑metal or sodium‑ion powered vehicles under their respective UN codes).
Some legacy workflows referenced UN 3171 for battery‑powered vehicles, but carriers are transitioning away from UN 3171 workflows as they implement Amendment 42‑24.
Carrier implementation, enforcement, and transition timing can vary by line and trade lane, so shippers should always:
Confirm the required UN entry and any special provisions with the carrier’s DG desk for the specific sailing and the IMDG amendment in force.
Follow any carrier‑issued DG circulars on lithium‑battery and hybrid vehicles.
West Coast Shipping’s article on lithium battery risk during overseas shipping also highlights how IMDG special provisions for vehicles interact with these UN entries.
Carriers and DG teams may request:
Confirmation that a UN 38.3 test summary exists for the traction battery pack.
Key battery specifications (chemistry, capacity, voltage).
A dangerous‑goods declaration referencing the chosen UN entry and applicable special provisions.
Evidence that the vehicle is structurally sound and undamaged around the high‑voltage system.
UN 38.3 guidance requires that a test summary be made available along the supply chain (often upon request) rather than physically traveling with every shipment, so importers should be ready to produce it if the carrier or DG reviewer asks.
State‑of‑charge (SOC) expectations for EVs are carrier‑ and mode‑specific:
Air‑transport rules for certain standalone lithium‑ion batteries set an explicit SOC cap—most notably the 30% SOC limit for many UN 3480 lithium‑ion battery consignments in ICAO/IATA guidance.
For ocean‑shipped EVs, many carriers adopt internal policies requiring reduced SOC, sometimes around 30%, to mitigate fire risk while keeping enough charge for loading, unloading, and yard moves.
There is no single universal SOC percentage for every EV shipment, so West Coast Shipping treats SOC as a booking parameter: confirm the carrier’s SOC requirement before delivering the vehicle to port, then photograph and record the dashboard SOC at handover for your records.
On the U.S. side, EEI filing in AES is mandatory for exports of used self‑propelled vehicles under the Foreign Trade Regulations, regardless of the usual value thresholds that apply to other commodities. West Coast Shipping’s USA–Turkey step‑by‑step guide explains how AES/EEI, title validation, and CBP export clearance fit into the process.
For Turkey, West Coast Shipping typically recommends container shipping for both EVs and gasoline cars, as detailed on the Turkey country page and in the container vehicle guide.
Shared containers are often used for cars and motorcycles, combining cost efficiency with strong physical protection and regular sailings.
Dedicated containers are commonly chosen for high‑value vehicles or multi‑car shipments where tailored loading and extra control are desired.
For the Turkey lanes West Coast Shipping focuses on, RoRo is mainly used for oversized vehicles and heavy machinery, while most passenger vehicles, including EVs, move by container.
Transit times depend on origin, routing, sailing frequency, and port conditions:
West Coast Shipping presents expectations as multi‑week planning windows and confirms vessel schedules and estimated transit at booking, rather than promising a single fixed “days on water” value.
East Coast and Gulf departures often have shorter ocean legs than West Coast departures, but total time also depends on inland haulage and consolidation cycles.
When documentation is complete, EVs and gasoline cars can move on similar timelines, but EVs are more likely to face pre‑departure acceptance delays if DG paperwork or classification needs clarification.
Regardless of drivetrain, vehicles entering Turkey follow the same broad customs process outlined in the USA–Turkey step‑by‑step guide.
Common risk points for both EVs and gasoline cars include:
Valuation issues where declared values diverge from observable market levels.
Misclassification of engine displacement, EV motor power, vehicle type, or GTIP, which can place the vehicle under the wrong ÖTV or additional‑duty band.
Documentation gaps, such as missing titles, powers of attorney, or required Turkish translations.
For EVs, customs may sometimes request extra technical data (battery capacity, motor power, conformity documents), while gasoline vehicles may receive more scrutiny on engine displacement, emissions category, and age limits, as discussed in West Coast Shipping’s Turkey‑focused import content, including shipping classic cars to Turkey.
Across both categories, West Coast Shipping recommends working with a customs broker who is familiar with current Official Gazette tables, GTIP nuances, and local port practices, and treating any blog‑level percentages as orientation only until a broker provides a formal calculation.
Both EVs and gasoline cars carry energy‑related hazards:
EVs store energy in high‑voltage lithium‑ion batteries.
Gasoline vehicles store flammable liquid fuel in tanks and lines.
Carriers mitigate these risks through measures such as:
Dangerous‑goods‑aware stowage and segregation planning.
Standard shipboard fire‑detection/suppression systems and emergency response procedures.
Acceptance rules that may restrict damaged or non‑running vehicles or require extra review before loading.
In practice, the most common risk importers encounter is not physical safety but schedule disruption caused by paperwork or classification issues—for example, an EV delayed for DG documentation or a gasoline car held for valuation clarification.
Considering both tax and operational factors, shipping an EV to Turkey tends to make sense when:
You are importing a mid‑ to high‑value vehicle that would face very high ÖTV if it were gasoline‑powered.
You can secure the necessary battery documentation and are comfortable with DG workflows.
You have or can arrange charging infrastructure and service at your destination in Turkey.
You plan to keep the vehicle long enough that operating‑cost savings and any local EV advantages justify the up‑front tax burden.
A gasoline car may be preferable when:
The vehicle is lower‑value or compact, where the EV tax advantage is modest once additional financial obligations are factored in.
Access to reliable charging or EV service is uncertain where you will live or operate the vehicle.
You prefer to minimize DG‑related complexity and keep the export workflow simpler.
The best decision comes from comparing your actual vehicles side‑by‑side using these structures and having a Turkish customs broker validate the figures against current law and tariff data.
To see how these cost and risk differences apply to your specific vehicles and route, start with the guide on shipping electric vehicles to Turkey and the Turkey country page, then request a side‑by‑side quote that models both your EV and gasoline options on the same origin–port pair so you can choose the best fit before you ship.