In Article 242 of the Customs Code under the section “Objection”, objections against the administrative decisions customs tax and penalties and the administrative decisions are regulated. This administrative appeal contained in the Customs Law Act is generally accepted as a mandatory administrative objection in the case-law of the higher courts, in the administrative practice and in academic studies on this subject. When the secondary legislation on the said provision is examined, it is understood that this practice contradicts both the basic principles of administrative jurisdiction and the fundamental human rights. Thus this administrative application affects the taxpayer’s right to access to court directly. Property right of the taxpayer is also affected inderectly because of the interest of default the extended administrative and legal process may cause.

As a result of this study, the conclusion that the existing provision has been misjudged by the administrative and judicial bodies. It is accepted as a mandatory way yet the regulation in the Customs Code clearly shows a discretionary application path. Subsequently, the reference to Article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Code as the source of the regulations in the secondary legislation relating to the provision is wrong in our opinion. Because in act 10 of this code, is an provison for situations where administrative bodies does not establish a procedure. However, this administrative objection contained in the Customs Code only can be made against an administrative action by the customs administration. In the light of these findings, it is emphasized that the fundamental rights of individuals may be violated. Because the prolongation of the administrative objection, the right to access to the court of the taxpayers is violated.