Effective May 1, 2026, the newly revised Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China will officially take effect, among which Article 93 makes a major adjustment to the attribution of responsibility in cases where no one takes delivery of goods at the port of discharge——related risks and costs such as port demurrage, warehousing, cargo destruction, and the like will shift from being borne by the original consignee to being primarily borne by the shipper. This change directly affects manufacturing enterprises, foreign trade companies, and international freight forwarding agencies that conduct export business using international trade terms such as FOB and CFR, and it constitutes a substantive restructuring of rights and responsibilities especially for cross-border transaction chains that rely on the buyer to pick up the goods independently.

Event Overview

According to publicly available information, the newly revised Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China will take effect on May 1, 2026. Article 93 stipulates that where no one takes delivery of goods at the port of discharge, the resulting port demurrage, storage fees, inspection fees, destruction and disposal fees, and related legal consequences shall in principle be borne by the shipper. This provision replaces the rule in the previous law under which the consignee was the primary liable party, and is one of the most direct adjustments involving practical operations in this round of legal revision.

Which market segments will be affected

Direct trading enterprises: mainly refers to enterprises that export goods to overseas end customers through their own brands or self-operated channels. Since they usually sign bills of lading as the shipper under the contract, this shift in responsibility means that even after shipment has been completed as agreed and the documents have been delivered, they still need to bear fallback responsibility for whether the overseas buyer takes delivery in a timely manner. The impact is reflected in the fact that risks are not truly closed after presentation under a letter of credit, the mismatch between accounts receivable terms and physical cargo risks is intensified, and potential port demurrage claims may erode gross profit margins.

Processing and manufacturing enterprises: especially contract manufacturers or OEM factories that accept overseas orders and ship under FOB/CFR terms. They often do not have control over the overseas consignee's performance capability and customs clearance qualifications, yet because they are registered as the shipper, they directly face recovery claims for port charges. The impact is concentrated in the lack of risk identification mechanisms during order review, the lack of tracking capability for destination port developments after shipment, and the mismatch between insurance coverage and actual liabilities.

Supply chain service enterprises: including international freight forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCC), and third-party logistics service providers. In most cases, they issue bills of lading as contractual carriers, but the actual shipper is often the entrusting client. Under the new rules, if the entrustment agreement does not clearly define responsibility allocation and expense advance mechanisms, they may face dual pressure from recourse claims by the shipper and claims from the port side, affecting the design of service contract clauses and the setup of risk control processes.

What key points should relevant enterprises or practitioners pay attention to, and how should they respond at present

Pay attention to follow-up supporting implementation rules and judicial interpretation trends

At present, only the shift of responsibility in the legal text has been made clear, but the criteria for determining “no one takes delivery” (such as time limits, notification obligations, and force majeure exclusions), circumstances for shipper exemption, as well as the boundaries of the carrier's duty to mitigate losses, still await supporting documents to be issued by the Ministry of Transport, the Supreme People's Court, and other authorities. Enterprises should continue to track relevant policy developments and the first batch of typical case reports from the second quarter of 2026 onward.

Focus on assessing high-risk markets and categories under FOB/CFR terms

Analysis shows that some countries and emerging markets in South America, the Middle East, and Africa have characteristics such as low customs clearance efficiency, unstable buyer credit, and non-transparent port charges, which, combined with the new rules, make it easier to trigger shipper liability scenarios. Enterprises should classify and review existing customers by country, historical pickup timeliness, and the stability of cooperation with destination port agents, and prioritize renegotiating delivery safeguard clauses for high-risk orders.

Bring forward responsibility agreements and document control in the booking and entrustment process

From an industry perspective, shippers should avoid relying solely on standard-form bills of lading, and should separately specify in freight forwarding agreements or export entrustment letters: “If no one takes delivery of the goods at the port of discharge due to reasons attributable to the consignee, all resulting costs and liabilities shall be borne by the consignee, and the entrusting party (shipper) shall have the right to full recourse against the consignee”, and require the freight forwarder to file written records with the carrier simultaneously. At the same time, use telex release bills of lading cautiously, and retain control over the goods through the original bill of lading until delivery is confirmed as completed.

Establish a coordination and early warning mechanism for pickup progress at the destination port

What deserves more attention at present is that simply relying on the buyer's commitment is no longer sufficient. Enterprises may promote agreed obligations with overseas customers for feedback on delivery time nodes, or obtain access to destination port EDI data interfaces through cooperating freight forwarders, so as to implement visual monitoring of key nodes such as container status, customs release status, and yard overdue warnings, thereby achieving early risk identification, early communication, and early handling.

Editor's Viewpoint / Industry Observation

Observably, this amendment signals a structural recalibration of risk allocation in China’s maritime export chain—not merely a technical update. It shifts legal exposure upstream to the party with greater control over transaction initiation and counterparty selection (the shipper), rather than downstream to the party whose cooperation is often beyond contractual reach (the consignee). Analysis shows it functions less as an immediate enforcement tool and more as a legislative nudge toward higher due diligence standards across export operations. The industry needs sustained attention because implementation clarity—and especially how courts interpret “reasonable efforts” by shippers to ensure delivery—will determine whether this becomes a routine cost factor or a material liability trigger.

Conclusion: the shift of responsibility under Article 93 of the new Maritime Law marks that China's maritime export risk management system has entered a new stage in which rights and responsibilities are clearer but proactive management is also more strongly emphasized. It does not negate international trade practices, but requires enterprises to make up for shortcomings in risk control under traditional models such as FOB/CFR. At present, it is more appropriate to understand it as an institutional signal forcing compliance upgrades, rather than an enforcement outcome that has already been fully implemented; enterprises should adopt a prudent but not panicked attitude, focus on contract optimization, process coordination, and mechanism building, and transform rule changes into a practical path for enhancing supply chain resilience.

Information source notes:
Main basis: the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Revising the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China (published in 2025, effective May 1, 2026);
Parts requiring continued observation: supporting regulations of the Ministry of Transport, relevant judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court, and the first batch of maritime court cases applying this article.