Abandoned Cargo at a Chinese Port: Who Pays Under the 2026 Maritime Code

Cargo that nobody collects at a Chinese port is now the shipper's problem, not the consignee's, unless the consignee has already asserted its rights under the contract of carriage and then stalled. That single sentence is the change the revised Maritime Code made when it came into force on 1 May 2026, and it reverses thirty years of practice under the old Article 86.

For a foreign buyer this cuts both ways. Under CFR and CIF terms the shipper is the Chinese seller, so port storage, container detention and disposal costs that used to land on the buyer now land on the party the buyer is most likely to have a claim against. Under FOB terms the buyer is usually the shipper itself, because the buyer books the carriage, and nothing improves. Knowing which of the two you are is the whole exercise.

The short answer

What the old rule said

Article 86 of the 1993 Code compressed two different situations into one sentence and gave them one answer:

"Where goods are not collected at the port of discharge, or where the consignee delays or refuses to collect them, the master may discharge the goods into a warehouse or other suitable place, and the costs and risks arising from doing so are borne by the consignee."

Everything went to the consignee. Where the buyer was the consignee, which is the normal case, the carrier looked to the buyer for demurrage, storage and the cost of dumping the cargo, whether or not the buyer had ever asked for the goods to be shipped, and whether or not the buyer had done anything at all after they arrived.

That produced the situation shipping lawyers in China know well: a container sits at Ningbo or Qingdao for four months, the forwarder invoices the party named as consignee on the bill of lading, and that party's only defence is that it never wanted the goods. Under the old text, not wanting them was not an answer.

What Article 93 does now

The revised Code splits the single sentence into two paragraphs with two different obligors.

The first paragraph reads:

"Where goods are not collected at the port of discharge, the master may discharge them into a warehouse or other suitable place, and the costs and risks arising from doing so are borne by the shipper, provided the shipper is notified promptly."

The second paragraph reads:

"Where the consignee has already exercised rights under the contract of carriage but delays or refuses to collect the goods, the master may deal with the goods in accordance with the preceding paragraph, and the costs and risks arising from doing so are borne by the consignee."

The logic is not arbitrary. Paragraph 1 deals with cargo that has been orphaned before anyone on the destination side engaged with it. In that situation the carrier's real counterparty is the party that put the cargo on the ship, and that is who should carry the consequence. Paragraph 2 deals with cargo that had a taker who then changed its mind. Once the consignee has presented the bill of lading, obtained a delivery order or declared the goods for import, it has taken the benefit of the contract of carriage, and it takes the burden with it.

Who counts as "the shipper"

This is where the drafting matters, and where a buyer can be caught. Article 44(3) of the revised Code defines "shipper" as two different people:

1. the person who, in its own name or through another on its behalf, concludes a contract of carriage of goods by sea with the carrier; and
2. the person who, in its own name or through another on its behalf, delivers the goods to the carrier in connection with that contract.

The first is the contracting shipper. The second is the party that physically hands the container to the line, which in a Chinese export transaction is almost always the seller or its forwarder, whoever booked the freight.

Article 93 does not say which of the two it means. Two arguments point at the contracting shipper: the notification duty in the same paragraph only makes sense against a party the carrier can identify and reach, and the carrier's right of recourse under Article 95 runs against "the shipper" as a contracting party. The counter-argument is textual and cannot be dismissed: Article 44 defines both as shipper, and Article 93 uses the defined term without qualification. No judicial interpretation has resolved it yet, because the provision is barely six months old.

In practice this matters most in FOB transactions. The buyer books the carriage and is the contracting shipper; the Chinese seller delivers the goods and is also, on the Article 44(3)(2) reading, a shipper. A carrier chasing storage costs will invoice whoever it can reach and whoever appears to have assets in China, which is the seller. Whether that allocation survives a defence based on Article 44(3)(1) has not been tested. Buyers should not assume the question is settled in their favour.

Three situations, worked through

The buyer who never takes delivery under CFR or CIF

The seller books the vessel, is named as shipper on the bill, and the buyer is named as consignee. The cargo arrives, the buyer does not present the bill, does not declare for import, and stops answering emails. Under the 1993 Code the carrier invoiced the buyer. Under Article 93(1) the carrier's claim is against the shipper, which is the seller. The buyer's exposure to the carrier largely disappears, and the seller's exposure appears. The buyer's exposure to the seller under the sale contract is a separate question, and a much worse one: the seller can claim the price and damages for non-acceptance, and the fact that the carrier no longer pursues the buyer does not help with that.

The buyer who never takes delivery under FOB

The buyer books the vessel, so the buyer is the contracting shipper, and the seller delivers to the carrier. Cargo arrives, the buyer does nothing. Article 93(1) points at the shipper, and on the contracting-shipper reading that is the buyer. The change from the 1993 Code is nominal in this scenario, because the buyer was the consignee before. This is the least improved case and the most common one for small and mid-sized importers, who usually buy FOB to control freight.

The buyer who takes up the documents and then stops

The buyer presents the original bill, obtains a delivery order, files the import declaration, then discovers the market has collapsed and stops. This is Article 93(2) territory. The buyer has exercised rights under the contract of carriage, so the costs and risks are its own. There is no version of this where the carrier is expected to absorb the storage. Buyers who think they can take the documents "to keep the option open" and then disengage should understand that taking the documents is the act that closes the option.

What the carrier can actually do

Knowing who owes the money is only half of it. The carrier has three tools, and the second is the one that hurts.

Lien on the goods. Article 94 allows the carrier to lien the corresponding cargo where freight, general average contribution, demurrage, advances made for the goods and other sums payable have not been paid and no appropriate security has been given. There is an important limit for buyers: where the transport document states that freight is prepaid or contains a statement to that effect, the carrier cannot lien the goods for unpaid freight — except where the consignee is the shipper. So a buyer holding a bill marked "freight prepaid" is protected against a freight lien, but a buyer who is also the contracting shipper is not.

Court-ordered auction after sixty days. Under Article 95, where goods liened under Article 94 are still not collected sixty days after the day following the vessel's arrival at the port of discharge, the carrier may apply to a court for auction. Where the goods are perishable, or where storage plus the sums owed may exceed the value of the cargo, the carrier may apply for early auction. The proceeds pay storage, auction costs, freight and other charges; any shortfall can be recovered from the shipper; any surplus is returned to the shipper; and anything unclaimed for one year after the auction goes to the state.

Recourse against the shipper. The shortfall route in Article 95 is the carrier's cleanest claim, because it is a statutory recourse rather than a contract claim, and it runs against the shipper directly. This is the provision that gives Article 93(1) its teeth.

The trap in the second paragraph

The two paragraphs are not separated by a clear line, and buyers tend to cross it without noticing. "Exercising rights under the contract of carriage" is not defined in the Code. The ordinary meaning of taking delivery — presenting the bill, obtaining the delivery order, clearing customs — plainly qualifies. Whether lesser acts do is open. Corresponding with the carrier's agent about the cargo, asking for a storage estimate, or requesting a joint survey may each be argued either way, and there is no decided case yet.

The practical consequence is counter-intuitive. A buyer who is unsure whether it wants the cargo is better off, on the cost allocation alone, doing nothing than doing something half-hearted. That is a legal position, not commercial advice: doing nothing exposes the buyer to the seller's claim for the price, which is usually larger than the storage bill. But a buyer who sends a series of emails to the line's local agent asking about the cargo and then abandons it may find it has moved itself from paragraph 1 into paragraph 2 without getting any of the goods.

What to put in the contract

1. Name the party who bears port costs, and name the trigger. Do not leave it to Article 93's default. A clause stating that storage, demurrage and disposal costs at the port of discharge are for the account of the party that fails to take delivery within a stated number of days, together with a right of indemnity, does more work than any amount of argument about which paragraph applies.
2. Fix the delivery window by reference to the arrival notice, not the bill of lading date. A window tied to arrival is enforceable; a window tied to a document the buyer may never receive is not.
3. If you are the FOB buyer, price in the shipper risk. You are the contracting shipper. Ask the seller to accept a clause allocating port costs to the party that failed to take delivery, so that the seller cannot point at Article 93(1) and say the statute already puts it on you.
4. Do not take up the documents speculatively. If you are not sure you want the goods, take advice before presenting the bill. Presenting it is the act that moves you into Article 93(2).
5. Get the arrival notice in writing and diary the sixty days. The auction clock in Article 95 starts the day after the vessel arrives. Once a court sale happens, the goods are gone and the argument becomes about money rather than cargo.

Frequently asked questions

Does this mean a Chinese seller now pays for my abandoned cargo?

Under CFR and CIF, where the seller is the contracting shipper, Article 93(1) points at the seller. Under FOB, where you booked the carriage, it points at you. The provision changes the allocation; it does not produce a free option to walk away, because the seller's claim against you under the sale contract is unaffected.

Who decides whether I have "exercised rights under the contract of carriage"?

A court, after the fact, on the facts. The Code does not define the phrase and no judicial interpretation has addressed it. Presenting the bill and clearing customs are clearly within it; correspondence with the carrier's agent is the grey area.

Can the carrier hold my other cargo for this debt?

No. The lien in Article 94 attaches to the goods carried under that contract of carriage. A carrier cannot set off an unpaid storage bill on one shipment against unrelated cargo in a later shipment without a separate legal basis.

Does the sixty-day auction period run from arrival or from discharge?

From the day following the vessel's arrival at the port of discharge. The clock is statutory and does not require anyone's consent or notice to start, which is why the auction is often the first thing a buyer hears about.

Does this apply to goods carried by rail or air?

No. The Maritime Code governs carriage by sea and, since 1 May 2026, carriage between Chinese ports. Rail, road and air carriage are governed by separate regimes, and a China-Europe rail shipment is not within Article 93 at all.

What if the seller has disappeared?

The carrier will then look at whoever it can reach, which may bring the argument back to you on the Article 44(3)(2) reading of "shipper". A seller with no assets does not make the problem disappear; it changes who is worth suing.

Work out which paragraph you are in before the cargo lands

Send me the sale contract, the bill of lading and the arrival notice, and I will tell you who Article 93 puts the port costs on for this particular shipment, whether anything you have already done has moved you into the second paragraph, and what the carrier can realistically recover from whom. The commercial steps before payment are set out in the pre-payment sourcing checklist, and the position where the seller simply stops shipping is in how to recover money from a Chinese supplier that stopped shipping. Where the honest answer is that you have already crossed into paragraph 2, that is what you will be told. The wider set of routes for a cargo or payment dispute is set out in dispute resolution.

About the author

Li Xinlei (Aaron Li) is a partner at Beijing Huicheng (Jinan) Law Firm in Jinan, Shandong, where he acts for foreign companies and individuals in international trade disputes, cross-border enforcement and construction claims. He has five years of international engineering and market development experience in the Middle East and South Asia, and writes on China trade lawyer practice from the buyer's side — what to check, what it costs, and what can actually be recovered.

Source note: the statutory text discussed is the Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China as revised and adopted by the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress on 28 October 2025 and in force from 1 May 2026, together with Article 86 of the 1993 Code which it replaces. Chinese statutory text is quoted in English translation prepared for this article; the Chinese text governs. Where the article says a question is unsettled, that reflects the absence of a judicial interpretation or reported decision on the point as at the date of writing, and is not a prediction of how a court would rule.

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. Procedural rules and judicial practice change, and the appropriate route depends on the facts of the individual matter. Please consult and appoint a qualified lawyer for your own case.