Starting from May 1, 2026，the newly revised Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China will officially take effect，with Article 93 making a major adjustment to the determination of liability in cases where no one takes delivery of goods at the port of discharge——changing from the original provision under which the consignee bears primary liability to a comprehensive shift in which the shipper bears primary liability。This change directly affects the risk allocation logic of foreign trade export enterprises，international freight forwarders，cross-border supply chain service providers and other entities，and has a substantive impact in particular on enterprises conducting business under international trade terms such as FOB and CIF，which deserves close attention from the foreign trade，logistics，shipping and foreign-related manufacturing industries。

Event Overview

According to publicly available information，Article 93 of the new Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China，which will take effect on May 1, 2026，clearly states that when goods arrive at the port of discharge and no one takes delivery of them（including cases where the consignee refuses to take delivery，fails to complete customs clearance in time or becomes unreachable），liabilities such as port detention charges，storage charges，disposal costs and losses from abandoned goods will be adjusted from the original principle of ‘consignee liability’ to ‘shipper primary liability’。This clause is a mandatory legal provision and is not automatically excluded by the terms of a trade contract，but it allows the parties to separately agree on the allocation of liability under lawful conditions。

Which Segmented Industries Will Be Affected

Direct Trading Enterprises

For foreign trade companies or integrated manufacturing and trading enterprises acting as exporters，if transactions are concluded under FOB or CIF terms，destination port risks could previously be transferred to the buyer based on the trade terms；after the new rules take effect，even if the contract stipulates that the overseas buyer is responsible for customs clearance and taking delivery，once no one takes delivery of the goods，the carrier may still seek recovery from the shipper in accordance with the law。The impact is mainly reflected in increased accounts receivable risk，higher costs for handling overseas disputes，and a greater possibility of payment refusal under letters of credit/collection arrangements。

Processing and Manufacturing Enterprises

Manufacturing enterprises exporting under OEM/ODM models often do not directly sign ocean bills of lading，but if they are listed as the shipper on the bill of lading（such as when the factory name is used for bill issuance or when an agent issues the bill without clearly separating rights and responsibilities），they may be claimed against by the carrier as primarily liable。The impact is mainly reflected in：being passively drawn into overseas port disputes，sudden compensation pressure caused by insufficient financial reserves，and an expanded gap in export credit insurance coverage。

Supply Chain Service Enterprises

These include international freight forwarders，non-vessel operating common carriers（NVOCC），cross-border logistics platforms and others，which often act as contractual shippers or bill of lading issuers in actual operations。The new rules strengthen their duty of care regarding the downstream consignee’s ability to perform，with the impact mainly reflected in：higher requirements for customer credit reviews，the need to bring forward liability statements in document circulation，and the urgent need to improve internal recovery mechanisms with the actual shipper。

Channel Distribution Enterprises

Enterprises engaged in cross-border e-commerce direct mail，overseas warehousing and distribution，distribution import and other businesses may trigger situations where no one takes delivery if delays or abnormal receipt occur during customs clearance in the destination country。The impact is mainly reflected in：port detention costs being elevated from “terminal costs” to “source liability”，the need to rebuild existing cost calculation models，and the need to renegotiate risk-sharing clauses with overseas partners。

What Key Points Should Relevant Enterprises or Practitioners Pay Attention To，and How Should They Respond Now

Pay Attention to Subsequent Supporting Judicial Interpretations and Typical Case Developments

Analysis shows：the legal provisions have currently taken effect，but the specific criteria for determining “no one takes delivery”（such as time limits，notification obligations，and reasonable forms of demand notices），as well as grounds for shipper exemption（such as being able to prove that the consignee has expressly abandoned the goods and that confirmation has been obtained from the competent authority of the destination country），still await judicial interpretations from the Supreme People’s Court or the release of guiding cases。Enterprises should continuously track the first batch of publicly available judgments applying the rules from maritime courts and identify the boundaries of adjudication standards。

Focus on Reviewing Liability Connection Clauses in FOB/CIF Contracts

It is worth noting that：under FOB terms，although the seller is not responsible for booking space，if the seller participates in booking in actual operations or is listed as the shipper on the bill of lading，it cannot automatically be exempted from liability；under CIF terms，the seller arranges transportation and obtains the bill of lading，making it more likely to be identified as the shipper in the legal sense。What currently deserves more attention is：whether to add a “destination port delivery guarantee clause” to the sales contract，whether to require the buyer to provide customs clearance agent qualifications and advance payment guarantees，and whether to make necessary liability limitation statements in bill of lading annotations。

Reassess the Coverage Scope of Export Credit Insurance and Cargo Insurance

From an industry perspective：traditional export credit insurance mostly focuses on commercial risks such as buyer bankruptcy and payment refusal，and seldom covers port charges arising from unclaimed cargo；cargo insurance usually does not cover derivative costs from port detention。A more appropriate understanding is：enterprises need to proactively communicate with insurers to expand insured liabilities，or separately take out “destination port cost protection add-on insurance”，and truthfully disclose the transaction model and the buyer’s performance history when applying for insurance。

Establish a Dynamic Pre-Shipment Assessment Mechanism for the Buyer’s Ability to Perform

The current priority is to：introduce third-party credit report checks at the order confirmation stage for high-risk targets such as newly developed customers，customers in politically unstable regions，and small and medium-sized importers；for existing customers，update data such as customs clearance timeliness，customs ratings，and port detention records on a quarterly basis and embed them into the order review process。Avoid judging delivery reliability solely based on historical cooperation records or verbal commitments。

Editor’s View / Industry Observation

It is worth noting that：this legislative amendment is not an isolated adjustment，but echoes the overall regulatory trend in recent years in which China has promoted “closed-loop management of maritime transport liability” and strengthened export compliance risk control。At present，it is more like an institutional signal——reminding the foreign trade ecosystem that it is shifting from “emphasizing delivery while neglecting landing” to “full-chain traceable responsibility”。What the industry needs to continue monitoring is：how maritime courts in different regions will determine whether “the shipper has fulfilled reasonable duty of care” during the first year of application；and whether the Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Transport will simultaneously issue supporting guidelines to clarify the connection rules between trade terms and liabilities under maritime law。In the short term，the legal effect has been established，but there remains room for interpretation and negotiation in practical implementation。

Conclusion：this adjustment to Article 93 of the Maritime Law marks the evolution of China’s maritime transport liability system from an attribution logic based on the “formal shipper” to one based on the “substantive risk controller”。It does not change the basic rules of international trade，but it significantly raises the threshold of attention that exporters must pay to performance outcomes at the destination port。At present，it is more appropriate to understand it as a structural risk reallocation mechanism rather than a simple cost transfer。Enterprises should adopt a prudent and pragmatic approach and incorporate it into a normalized risk control framework for contract management，insurance allocation and customer screening。

Information Source Statement：
Main source：Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Amending the Maritime Law of the People’s Republic of China（adopted in December 2025，effective from May 1, 2026）；
Items for ongoing observation：judicial interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court regarding the application of Article 93 of the Maritime Law，notices on the first batch of typical cases，and the release of supporting operational guidelines by the Ministry of Transport。