TT Talk - What freight forwarders should watch under China’s revised Maritime Code

Effective 1 May 2026

China’s revised Maritime Code is not a minor amendment. It is the first comprehensive overhaul since the Code entered into force in the early 1990s, and it reshapes several rules that freight forwarders deal with every day, often without conscious reference to the law behind them.

For freight forwarders, the most important message is simple: your legal role can change from shipment to shipment. In one transaction you may act purely as an agent passing instructions. In another, you may issue documents or contract in your own name and find yourself treated as a contracting carrier, NVOCC, or multimodal transport operator.

The revised Code does not single out freight forwarders, but it does shift risk towards the party closest to the transport contract and the transport record. In practice, that can be the forwarder.

What follows are the key changes freight forwarders should have on their radar and, critically, what they should be doing as the new rules take effect.

China’s revised Maritime Code is not a minor amendment. It is the first comprehensive overhaul since the Code entered into force in the early 1990s.

One rulebook now applies to domestic coastal carriage

Historically, China operated something of a two-track system. The Maritime Code’s carriage of goods chapter was focussed on international sea carriage, while domestic coastal carriage between Chinese ports often defaulted to general civil and transport law.

That distinction disappears under the revised Code. A “contract of carriage of goods by sea” now expressly includes both international and domestic coastal carriage between PRC ports. Inland river transport, however, remains outside the scope.

For forwarders, this matters because domestic coastal carriage carries some important differences:

• The carrier’s seaworthiness obligation runs throughout the voyage, not just before and at the beginning.
• Delay can be established where goods are not delivered within a reasonable time, even where no delivery deadline is specified
• Two familiar international defences - errors in navigation or management of the ship, and fire—do not apply to domestic coastal carriage.

Forwarder takeaway: 
If you are involved in coastal sea legs, including sea–river or river–sea moves, do not assume international terms will work as is. Contract wording, standard operating procedures and claims handling assumptions should be reviewed at earliest opportunity.

Unclaimed cargo: the cost burden shifts towards the shipper

The revised Code introduces a clearer framework for unclaimed and abandoned cargo.

Where nobody takes delivery at the discharge port, the master may discharge the cargo to a warehouse or other appropriate place. Provided the shipper is notified “without delay”, the shipper bears the associated risks and costs. Where a consignee has exercised its rights under the contract but then delays or refuses delivery, the consignee will bear those costs instead.

This marks a shift away from a default assumption that costs sit with the consignee, and places renewed focus on who the contractual shipper is.

Why does this matter for forwarders? Under the revised Code, a “shipper” includes not only the cargo owner, but also anyone who enters into the contract of carriage or delivers the goods to the carrier, directly or through another. Depending on how booking notes are signed, how house bills are issued, and how capacity is described, a forwarder may find itself characterised as the shipper.

Documentation discipline therefore becomes critical. Forwarders intending to act only as agent should ensure booking notes and instructions are signed clearly “as agent for and on behalf of” the named principal.

Just as important is notice. The allocation of cost and risk now turns on whether notice was given “without delay”. That makes the audit trail, emails, system messages, formal letters - not just good practice, but potentially decisive.

Forwarder takeaway: 

• Tighten abandoned cargo wording in booking notes, service agreements and House of bill lading BL terms. 
• Be explicit on when cargo is treated as unclaimed, how notice is given, who pays, and what indemnities apply, especially where you could be viewed as the contractual shipper upstream.

Shipper control rights: more mid‑voyage change requests

The revised Code formally recognises a shipper’s right, during the carrier’s responsibility period, to instruct changes such as suspending the voyage, returning goods, changing the discharge port, or delivering to a different consignee. These rights are subject to indemnifying the carrier for resulting loss.

Carriers may only refuse where compliance is impossible, would disrupt normal operations, involves unpaid additional costs without security, or where required transport documents cannot be produced.

In practice, many forwarders already deal with these requests. What changes now is clarity and, with it, a clearer basis for dispute.

Forwarder takeaway: 
A short internal checklist can go a long way:

• Who has authority to give the instruction?
• Is the request operationally executable?
• What additional costs or security are required, and from whom?
• Is presentation of a transport document or proof of control needed?

Clarity up front helps avoid ambiguity arguments later.

Time bars: still one year, but easier to interrupt

The headline one year limitation period for cargo claims remains. However, the revised Code introduces a more balanced structure and a notable change on interruption.

Limitation can now be interrupted not only by commencing proceedings, but also by submitting a request for performance, a formal demand that can be oral or written and does not require acceptance by the counterparty. The Code also provides a clearer recourse window: at least 90 days from settlement of the original claim.

Forwarder takeaway: 

• Treat time bar management as an operational control, not just a legal issue.
• A demand letter or even certain emails may now have limitation implications.
• Preserve correspondence carefully, consider protective recourse demands early, and avoid unintended admissions of liability.

Technical changes with practical impact

Several quieter amendments may still influence claims outcomes:

• The fire defence is narrowed to “fire on board”.
• Cargo value is assessed primarily by market value at the place and time of delivery, where ascertainable.
• Lien wording is refined, improving enforceability but restricting use where freight is stated as prepaid.
• The definition of “actual carrier” is broadened, potentially bringing ports or subcontractors within the framework.
• Where a loading or discharge port is in China, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Chapter IV applies mandatorily, potentially limiting the practical effect of foreign jurisdiction clauses.

Forwarder takeaway: 
For China touch trades, review standard terms sooner rather than later. Do not wait until a dispute arises to discover that contractual choices of jurisdiction or familiar defences have limited effect.

A final word

The revised Maritime Code rewards clarity, good documentation and proactive risk management. It reflects the realities of modern freight forwarding and places responsibility where commercial involvement is most visible.

Freight forwarders who adjust their contracts, processes and training from 1 May 2026 will well placed to manage risk under the new regime and to continue supporting their customers with confidence.

Many thanks to Edgar Wong, TT Club’s Shanghai Representative for his contribution to this article.