Foreign trade and customs disputes: Analyzing the fines and solution methods by using the structural equation model

Institutionalization and proper functioning of foreign trade, which gained a larger role in the development of national economies in the course of time, are of significant importance. For this reason, it is necessary to manage the foreign trade process, which becomes more complex because of the gradually enlarging and diversifying volume, within certain rules and standards. Within this context, several international agreements were made and institutions and organizations were established to date. However, despite all the regulations and efforts, disputes frequently arise between the parties. Disputes are solved through resolution mechanisms at national and international levels. In the present study, besides the theoretical knowledge regarding the foreign trade and customs disputes, a survey questioning the sources of disputes, which customs agents and foreign trade officers who directly communicate with customs authority in Turkey have, and the perceptions about the solutions of those disputes was conducted. Within this context, using Structural Equation Model, three scales were developed in order to determine the perceptions of foreign trade officers and customs agents about the "customs disputes", "customs fines", and "dispute solution methods". The survey was conducted on 925 participants and the data obtained were analyzed. Examining the analysis results by scales in general, it can be seen that the perception level of customs agents was higher in comparison to that of foreign trade officers. Examining the results by the subscales for customs agents, it was determined that the authority showed a good performance in both customs operations and practices and administrative solution methods, that current administrative solution methods were satisfying in terms of solving the disputes, and that current customs fines were sufficiently deterrent and at a sufficient level. However, it is also thought that the regulations were complex, that there were differences between administrations, and that improvements were necessary for technical systems of administration.