Multi-load food shipments are a common practice, but without the right precautions, it creates the perfect conditions for cross-contamination. Just one of these incidents can cost carriers and operators between $4,700-$6,700, which includes everything from stock checks to equipment cleaning.
That’s before you factor in the cost of recalls and lost contracts. The good news is that cross-contamination in shared freight is preventable. Keep different products separate, control temperatures, follow a solid cleaning routine, and you’ll avoid the biggest risks and protect both your shipment and your business.
1) Store foods separately
Raw foods like meat and seafood must be stored well away from ready-to-eat products during transport. This is due to rules from the FSMA and USDA, and is an important precaution as 1 in 6 people in the U.S. get sick from foodborne diseases every year, according to the CDC.
Many of these cases can trace back to the supply chain. Compartments or pallets are the easiest way to separate products to prevent bacteria from spreading between them. Also, if any products are prone to dripping, store them on the bottom shelves so they can’t contaminate the rest of the load. Drip trays can catch any leaks.
2) Set the right temperature
Temperature control is one of the easiest things to get wrong in shared freight, but it’s so important for meat, seafood, dairy, and frozen foods, of course.
Bacteria grow fastest when temperatures range between 40 °F and 140 °F, and can double in number in just 20 minutes. Not only does the food spoil if that happens, but the bacteria can then contaminate other products in the load that otherwise would be perfectly fine, so it’s an all-around huge waste.
To put this into perspective, 15% of food losses occur during transport and storage in the cold food chain alone, which adds up to a $210 billion loss worldwide. So always follow the right temperature protocols to protect your load and your revenue, as warehouse specialists WSI explain.
Under FSMA rules, the shipper has to document the correct temperature range for every load. This has to be put in writing and communicated to everyone along the supply chain. From that point on, the carrier has to maintain that range throughout the journey.
Even before vehicles are loaded, they should be pre-cooled to match the temperature needed by the cargo. You need to do this to prevent condensation that can form if there’s too much of a temperature difference between the warm vehicle and the cold food. So think of pre-cooling as another necessary measure to prevent cross-contamination.
3) Clean between loads
Don’t overlook the importance of deep cleaning and sanitizing trailers, pallets, containers, and loading gear in between every shipment. Biofilm (a thin layer of bacteria) can develop on damp surfaces in just 24-48 hours if they’re not cleaned properly, and it can then transfer to other products.
This is especially an issue when you’re switching between load types. If you just shipped raw meat and switch to ready-to-eat foods, any bacteria left behind will contaminate products that won’t be cooked before they’re eaten – which means they’re not safe to eat.
The same goes for allergens, as any traces left will contaminate foods that are technically supposed to be free from. Keep a sanitation checklist for every load and have managers review cleaning logs regularly. This is the easiest way to stay on top of cleaning, and you also have to keep logs to show the FDA, so they’re not optional anyway.
Conclusion
Cross-contamination is always going to be a risk in shared freight but it’s preventable. Separate your products, control the temperature, and clean properly, and you’ll avoid the biggest risks and keep your business trucking along smoothly.
Containers do not lie.. They show what is moving, what is not, and where the pressure points in global trade really are..
In this edition of Executive Insights, Lori Ann LaRocco, creator of Containers Don’t Lie, shares the thinking behind the symposium, what makes it fundamentally different, why it moves beyond discussion, and why it comes at exactly the right time for global trade stakeholders, delivering something the industry rarely gets – honest, actionable insight..
SFR: “Containers Don’t Lie” is a powerful name.. What was the thinking behind turning that idea into a full symposium.. What gap in the industry are you trying to address..??
LALR: Containers Don’t Lie goes back to one of my books, Trade War.. It is about the agnostic nature of trade..
When I look at containers or vessels, trade does not lie in terms of what is moving, what is not moving, where it is moving, and what is happening with supply and inventory.. It becomes the tea leaf in terms of what is going on with a company or a country..
I wanted to use that idea and build something around it, but more importantly, I wanted to create the kind of event that I would want to attend..
I have spoken at many conferences, and a lot of them are on the record, with panels of four, five, sometimes six people..
The key takeaway has been that you do not always get actionable information, and you do not always get honest discussions because of the setting.. Panelists often only get a few minutes to speak..
I did not want that.. I wanted to create a room where people can come in, speak openly, share the unvarnished truth, and have real conversations.. That is why it is under Chatham House Rules..
It is designed as one-on-one discussions with some of the best minds in supply chain, where people leave with actionable insights and a new way of looking at their own supply chain..
SFR: The timing seems quite relevant with geopolitical tensions, trade wars, and continuous disruptions.. Do you see this as the right moment for this kind of conversation..??
LALR: I absolutely do.. Because in times of chaos and crisis, there is always opportunity..
It comes down to the strategies you deploy and how you respond.. With the pace of global trade today, you need to have a very strong understanding of your supply chain..
You need to be able to run a diagnostic on it.. Where are your strengths, where are your weaknesses, where are the silos.. What can you do better.. What are you not seeing that is right in front of you..
There may be services you can offer that you are not even aware of because you have not fully understood your own supply chain..
In times like these, the goal is to create as much predictability as possible, put mitigation measures in place, and improve how you serve your customers.. This forum is designed to give people that level of actionable clarity..
SFR: There are many conferences in shipping and logistics.. What makes this symposium fundamentally different..??
LALR: The difference is actionability and honesty.. At this symposium, you are going to get information that you will not get elsewhere.. From a policy perspective, we are bringing in administration officials to discuss key agreements like USMCA..
We have the administrator of the Panama Canal Authority coming in to give direct updates, which is critical given the current situation with LNG flows, global tensions, and upcoming El Niño challenges..
We are going to ask the real questions.. What mitigation measures are in place.. What does the future look like.. What opportunities exist from a logistics and infrastructure standpoint..
On the technology side, you will hear directly from leading experts in areas like generative AI.. Not just theory, but how you should actually deploy it..
There will also be deep dives into supply chain diagnostics, identifying silos, and understanding where inefficiencies exist.. And importantly, you can ask these experts directly about your own situation..
We are also covering areas like supply chain financing, including how companies can recover funds faster instead of waiting on traditional processes..
So this is not about listening.. It is about engaging, asking, and leaving with something you can apply immediately..
SFR: Who should ideally be in the room at this symposium and why does that mix matter..??
LALR: It is for people who have real exposure to supply chain decisions..
That includes CEOs, CFOs, CSOs, CCOs, logistics providers, shippers, and policymakers.. We also have private equity firms attending because they are investing in infrastructure and companies within this space..
The mix matters because supply chains are interconnected.. Decisions in finance, operations, policy, and investment all impact each other..
This is also for people who want to do better.. Those who want more control over their supply chain and a deeper understanding of their data..
I have seen companies with incredible data platforms, but they are not fully utilising them.. Sometimes they do not even realise what their systems are capable of..
That is where the opportunity lies.. Not just in building systems, but in understanding how to extract more value from what you already have..
SFR: With so many disruptions happening globally, what key themes do you think will dominate the discussions this year..??
LALR: It will definitely be a mix, and it may evolve depending on global developments..
Geopolitics will be a major theme, along with mitigation strategies.. We will also look at port performance and global trade rankings, with insights from institutions like the World Bank..
Artificial intelligence will be part of almost every discussion.. There is a lot of interest, but also a lot of misunderstanding.. We want to address both the opportunities and the right ways to approach it..
Another key focus will be optimisation.. How do you strengthen your supply chain, build on what works, and eliminate inefficiencies..
And then the final piece is practical execution.. After hearing all these insights, what do you actually do.. What are the steps you take next.. That is where we bring it all together..
SFR: Finally, beyond this edition, what is your long-term vision for Containers Don’t Lie..??
LALR: I see this becoming a benchmark platform for the industry..
There is a clear need for a highly curated, high-trust environment where people can engage openly and learn from each other..
The goal is to build a community.. One where people feel comfortable sharing insights, even if it is without attribution, because that is where real learning happens..
We are introducing something called the “tone of the room”.. Ahead of the event, attendees can share what they are seeing, hearing, and experiencing.. I will compile that into a weekly newsletter, without attribution, so everyone understands where the industry mindset is..
By the time the event starts, you already have a sense of what is on people’s minds.. That allows us to shape the discussions in a way that is relevant and responsive..
This is not just about a one-day event.. It is about creating an ongoing dialogue and a community that continues to evolve..
SFR: So essentially, attendees are not just listening, they are shaping the conversation..??
LALR: Exactly.. They are helping define what gets discussed..
We have structured themes, but within those, we adapt based on what people are actually dealing with.. That is the beauty of having experienced speakers who can pivot and respond in real time..
At the end of the day, this is about service.. Trade is about serving others.. So why not create an environment that serves the people who are doing that work..
Nobody in shipping thinks of themselves as bad at documents. Forwarders send them. Brokers file them. Suppliers produce them. But the point where most import shipments lose time and money isn’t at sea or in the air – it’s in the gap between one document leaving someone’s outbox and another person realising it doesn’t match what they already have.
We bring in goods from Asia, the USA, and the Middle East, mostly by ocean and air, clearing through EU customs. Our forwarders and brokers are competent. Our suppliers are reliable. But we still lose days and money to document problems regularly. Not because anyone’s negligent – because the process itself creates blind spots that nobody owns.
Here’s where things actually break down.
The weight mismatch that nobody checks
A container arrives at Rotterdam. The commercial invoice from the supplier says 12,400 kg gross weight. The bill of lading says 12,840 kg. The packing list says 12,400 kg.
That 440 kg difference is probably explained by pallet weight or packaging that the supplier excluded and the shipping line included. Everyone involved knows this is normal. But customs don’t care what’s normal. The declaration was filed using the invoice weight. The BL shows a different figure. That’s a discrepancy, and it can trigger a document review or a physical inspection.
The cost: two days of storage at the terminal while the broker requests a weight certificate from the supplier and files a corrected declaration. Terminal charges around €480. An additional fee from the customs broker for the amendment. The delivery to our warehouse missed the booking window, so we had to reschedule the haulier and the warehouse receiving team. One number, off by 440 kg, and the total cost was north of €800.
Three parties produced three documents with three different figures, and nobody compared them before the goods arrived. That’s the problem.
Documents that arrive after the ship
This one’s straightforward, but it still happens all the time. A vessel docks on Tuesday. The customs broker needs the original bill of lading, the commercial invoice, and the packing list to file the import declaration. The invoice and packing list arrived last week. The BL arrives on Wednesday afternoon.
The broker files on Thursday morning. Customs processes the declaration by Friday. The container’s been sitting at the terminal since Tuesday. Three days of storage and demurrage, because one document arrived 24 hours late.
For ocean freight into Northern Europe, terminal storage charges typically kick in after two or three free days. After that, rates escalate quickly – often €50-100 per day for a 20ft container, more for a 40ft. Miss your free time because a document was late, and you’re paying for a problem that was entirely avoidable.
Air freight is worse. Free time at most European air cargo terminals is measured in hours, not days. A missing airway bill or a delayed commercial invoice can mean storage charges within 24-48 hours of arrival. For perishable or time-sensitive goods, the cost isn’t just storage – it’s the goods themselves.
The certificate of origin doesn’t match
This one’s expensive because it hits the duty rate directly.
A supplier in Vietnam ships goods under the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement. The preferential duty rate is 0%. Without a valid certificate of origin, the standard MFN rate applies, which for some product categories can be 6%, 8%, or higher. On a shipment worth €40,000, that’s €2,400 to €3,200 in duty that you either pay unnecessarily or have to reclaim later.
It breaks down in a few ways. The certificate names a slightly different product description than the invoice. It references the wrong HS code. It was issued after the shipment date, which some customs authorities won’t accept. Or – and this is the one that really stings – the supplier simply didn’t apply for one in time and tells you about it after the goods are already on the water.
Reclaiming overpaid duty is possible in most EU countries, but it means filing an amendment, providing supporting evidence, and waiting. In the Netherlands, a refund can take months. Your cash is tied up the whole time.
When the consignee details are wrong
This is a small error that causes way more trouble than it should. The bill of lading shows the consignee as “ABC Trading BV” but the company’s registered name – and the name on the EORI registration – is “ABC Trading B.V.” with periods. Or the address shows “Rotterdam” but the customs registration shows “Rotterdam-Zuid.”
Nobody would say these are meaningful differences. But automated customs systems match fields electronically, and a mismatch between the BL consignee and the registered EORI holder can flag the declaration for manual review. Manual review means delay. Delay means cost.
The fix takes 30 seconds – verify the consignee details against the company’s EORI registration before the BL is issued. But in the chain of supplier to forwarder to shipping line, nobody considers it their job.
The document nobody asked for
Some shipments need documents that aren’t part of the standard commercial set. A fumigation certificate for wooden packaging. A health certificate for food-contact materials. A conformity declaration for electronics entering the EU market. An import licence for goods subject to quota or restriction.
These requirements are destination-specific and product-specific. The supplier doesn’t always know what the destination country requires. The forwarder isn’t always aware of the product classification. The importer may know in theory, but forget to request the document early enough.
What happens: goods arrive, the broker files the declaration, customs requests an additional certificate, and the shipment sits there until it’s produced. If the certificate needs to come from the country of origin – a phytosanitary certificate, for example – that can mean days or weeks of delay.
It’s not ignorance. It’s just that nobody sat down before the shipment and asked: for this product, going to this country, via this route, what do we actually need? Most importers learn the answer to that question by getting it wrong the first time.
What this adds up to
None of these problems is dramatic on its own. A few hundred euros here, a couple of days there. But across 10 or 20 shipments a month, it adds up. And these costs don’t show up on any invoice or report. They get absorbed into the general overhead of importing, treated as normal, and never measured.
What all of these have in common is that they happen between organisations, not within them. The supplier produces one document, the forwarder handles a different one, and the broker files based on what they’ve got. Nobody’s checking that everything says the same thing, arrived on time, and nothing’s missing. The importer is supposed to be doing that – but when you’re doing it across email, spreadsheets, and shared drives, things slip through.
Closing the gap
The fix isn’t more documents or more processes. It’s visibility. Someone – or something – needs to sit in the middle and track what’s been received, what’s outstanding, and what matches.
Some importers are starting to use shipment management platforms that centralise documents and track completeness automatically. Others do it with structured checklists and disciplined internal processes. The method matters less than the principle: treat document coordination as its own job, not a byproduct of moving goods.
For the shipping and freight side, the most valuable thing you can do is make the importer’s document job easier. Send documents early. Check that the key fields – weight, description, consignee, package count – match across the set. Flag anything unusual before it becomes a customs problem. That alone would prevent most of what I’ve described here.
About the Author : Will Partridge is an Operations Director at a European import company, managing shipments and customs compliance across multiple countries. He writes about import operations and document management for Carvo.
There are moments in this industry when numbers stop being just numbers and begin to represent something far deeper, and Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), approaching a fleet of 1,000 ships and almost 10 million TEUs, is one such moment..
This does not speak to scale alone, it speaks to decades of conviction, timing, and a very particular way of building a business that does not follow the crowd but quietly reshapes it..
You cannot separate this milestone from the man who started with a single ship and a clear belief that shipping was not just about moving cargo but about serving customers..
Across geographies, cycles, and disruptions, and over the years, this belief translated into a strategy that many watched, some questioned, and very few were able to replicate..
Born in Sorrento, Italy, into a shipping family and trained as a ship Captain, Gianluigi Aponte, the Founder and Group Chairman of MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, used his vision of “where the customer goes, MSC goes”, to grow MSC from a single ship operation in 1970 to become the largest container shipping line in the world..
Starting with MV Patricia, MSC’s business has grown and diversified to several sectors of the industry, including cruise liners, ferry services, container depots, inland and port terminals, logistics, and technology services..
What followed from that starting point was rapid expansion based on steady, calculated growth built on reinvesting into assets and routes that strengthened control over the network, expanding from regional trades into the main East-West corridors, connecting Asia, Europe, and the Americas with increasing frequency and coverage..
Aponte’s approach to fleet building was consistent, focusing heavily on acquiring second-hand ships when prices were low, especially during market downturns, allowing MSC to grow capacity without overexposing itself financially, and this counter-cyclical strategy became one of the defining characteristics of the company’s rise..
As containerisation matured, MSC continued to invest not only in larger ships but also in a wide mix of ship sizes, which gave the company the ability to serve both major trade lanes and smaller regional routes, ensuring that it was not dependent on a single market segment for its growth..
Over time, this expanded beyond shipping into terminals, inland logistics, and integrated supply chain services, giving MSC greater control over cargo movement from origin to destination, and reducing reliance on third parties in critical parts of the logistics chain..
Another important part of Aponte’s achievement is the decision to keep the business privately owned, which allowed MSC to take long-term decisions without the pressure of short-term financial reporting, and this independence enabled the company to invest heavily during uncertain periods when others were more cautious..
After these unprecedented successes, Gianluigi Aponte has handed over this shipping conglomerate to his children, Diego and Alexa. “Passing ownership to my children is not only a reflection of their dedication and achievements, but also a continuation of our family’s centuries-long maritime heritage,” stated Aponte in a press release..
Today, as MSC moves towards operating a fleet of 1,000 ships, the achievement is not just in reaching that number, it is in how that scale has been built, through disciplined investment, operational understanding, and a clear focus on serving customers across changing global trade conditions, which reflects the consistency of Aponte’s vision over more than five decades..
Salute to your contribution to the industry Capt.Aponte..
The term Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier was formally defined under the US Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. § 40102).. This Act codified the NVOCC as an operator that issues its own bills of lading and accepts carrier liability without owning or operating vessels..The NVOCC has evolved into one of the most commercially versatile roles in container shipping worldwide..
How does the NVOCC model work in practice..??
You book a small export shipment.. You receive a bill of lading signed as the carrier from a company that does not own a single ship.. You then learn the ocean leg is moving on a liner you never contracted with..
If that feels like a plot twist, you’ve met the logic behind the Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC).. It is an intermediary that sells ocean carriage in its own name, assumes the responsibility of a carrier to the shipper, and performs the sea leg through an underlying vessel operating carrier..
In this article, we look at the evolution of an NVOCC..
How did the NVOCC concept evolve..??
The concept of the NVOCC evolved out of regulatory attempts to make sense of what intermediaries were already doing in practice..
In the early days of ocean freight, particularly in the United States, freight forwarders were primarily seen as agents acting on behalf of shippers..
The 1946 Supreme Court case United States v. American Union Transport Co. reinforced this position.. It treated forwarders as representatives of the cargo owner rather than as carriers in their own right..
At the same time, similar intermediary roles developed across Europe and Asia.. Consolidators combined cargo and issued their own documents, even if the regulatory treatment differed..
As trade volumes grew and shipment sizes varied, intermediaries began consolidating cargo and issuing their own documents.. They stepped into a role that looked increasingly like that of a carrier, even though they did not own or operate ships..
This gap between legal definition and operational reality triggered the regulatory evolution of the term NVOCC..
The introduction of the term NVOCC and how its structure works
The term NVOCC can be traced back to 1962.. The Federal Maritime Commission introduced and defined the concept through rulemaking published in the Federal Register..
More than two decades later, the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. § 40102) codified this concept into law.. It gave the Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier a clear statutory identity..
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) licenses and oversees NVOCCs operating in the US trades.. FMC defines NVOCC as:
a common carrier that holds itself out to the public to provide ocean transportation, issues its own house bill of lading or equivalent document, and does not operate the vessels by which ocean transportation is provided
a shipper in its relationship with the vessel-operating common carrier involved in the movement of cargo
While this definition comes from US regulation, the operating model is global.. NVOCC-type operators function under different licensing regimes and commercial practices across trades..
The commercial structure that makes the NVOCC model work is what is often called the dual role..
An NVOCC books space on a vessel and presents itself as a shipper to the Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (VOCC).. The VOCC issues a master bill of lading to the NVOCC..
The NVOCC then issues its own house bill of lading to the cargo owner..
This creates a two-tier documentation structure.. The NVOCC sits in the middle and carries liability in both directions.. The cargo owner has no direct contractual relationship with the vessel operator..
How did NVOCC standards evolve..??
Before 1984, many intermediaries issued house bills of lading and consolidated cargo without any clear classification governing their liability..
The 1984 Shipping Act changed this in the USA.. It placed NVOCCs within the definition of a common carrier, with all the regulatory responsibility that comes with it..
As per FMC regulations, US-based NVOCCs must post surety bonds.. These act as financial recourse if the NVOCC fails to deliver or becomes insolvent.. Outside the United States, though, requirements vary and many markets do not have a single global regulator governing NVOCC activity..
This lack of global standardisation creates challenges around documentation integrity.. It is most visible in the issuance of bills of lading, leading to inconsistencies and risks across the trade chain..
The International Maritime Bureau responded by establishing NVOCC registers and standards.. It also introduced a code of conduct to improve issuance standards and reduce fraud risks in trade finance..
How has NVOCC regulation evolved from the Shipping Act 1984 to OSRA 2022..??
The Shipping Act of 1984 created the regulatory framework.. It also kept NVOCCs out of service contracts, which only beneficial cargo owners could negotiate directly with shipping lines..
The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (OSRA 98) changed this.. It allowed NVOCCs to enter into service contracts with VOCCs for the first time..
For serious NVOCC operators, this was the most commercially significant shift since 1984..
In 2011, the FMC introduced NVOCC Negotiated Rate Arrangements (NRAs)..
Before NRAs, every rate had to be filed publicly in a tariff.. NRAs allowed NVOCCs to offer individualised pricing through written agreements without publishing those rates..
While OSRA-22 applies to US trades, similar concerns exist globally.. These include space allocation, pricing transparency, and carrier accountability..
OSRA-22 requires VOCCs to provide written justification when declining to negotiate or enter into service contracts with NVOCCs..
It strengthens FMC enforcement over unreasonable refusals to carry and detention and demurrage practices..
It also gives smaller NVOCCs a channel to challenge discriminatory space allocation during high-demand periods..
Whether enforcement catches up with the intent of the law is a separate matter.. The regulatory standing is now in place..
What does the modern NVOCC actually operate and offer..??
If an entity issues its own bill of lading and takes responsibility for the carriage, it acts as a carrier, regardless of asset ownership..
What has not changed, despite decades of evolution, is the core value proposition..
The NVOCC brings together cargo from different shippers.. It secures space with carriers and moves that cargo under its own contract..
It assumes this responsibility because most of the shippers it serves do not have the volume or leverage to deal directly with carriers on workable terms.. The NVOCC aggregates that demand and makes the movement viable.
That is really why the model has endured..
The NVOCC did not start as a concept.. It came out of practice, was recognised by regulators, and scaled with containerisation and technology..
It exists because the market needed someone to take responsibility even when the ship belongs to someone else..
If you are moving cargo across Asia Pacific right now, you already sense that the market is not behaving the way it normally does.. Rates are moving without a clear demand surge, capacity is tightening in pockets, and planning is becoming less predictable.. The April 2026 Asia Pacific Freight Report by Dimerco helps make sense of that shift by showing what is actually driving these changes beneath the surface..
At a high level, manufacturing activity is still expanding, but the momentum is softer, and cost pressures are building.. That combination is important, because it creates a market that looks stable, but behaves unevenly in execution.. One of the biggest drivers behind this is fuel, which has risen sharply and is now influencing not just air freight, but ocean, rail, and trucking costs across the region..
At the same time, capacity is tightening without a traditional peak season.. This is not demand-led, it is disruption-led, with rerouting, fuel constraints, and operational adjustments all playing a role.. Add to that the growing impact of Middle East instability on routing, scheduling, and even cargo restrictions, and the pressure on supply chains becomes more visible..
What makes this more complex is that these pressures are not isolated.. They are interacting with regulatory changes, rising compliance requirements, and regional challenges in Southeast Asia, where fuel dependency and operational constraints are already affecting reliability..
What the full report does is go far beyond this surface view.. It breaks down how these forces are playing out across specific regions, lanes, and modes, showing where capacity is tightening, where rates are moving, and where risks are building in ways that are not always immediately visible.. It also provides practical direction on how to respond, not in theory, but in terms of planning, routing, and execution..
If you are making decisions on sourcing, routing, or freight strategy in the current environment, it is worth taking the time to go through the full report and see how these dynamics apply to your specific flows..
This is one of those distinctions that trips up a LOT of people in global trade, including some who have been in the business for years..
A Document of Title is a document that gives the person holding it the right to claim the goods described in that document.. The most common example in shipping is the Negotiable Bill of Lading.. Whoever holds the original, endorsed Bill of Lading has the right to take delivery of the cargo at the destination port..
A Document of Title does NOT automatically make you the Owner of the goods..
Ownership of Goods refers to the legal right of property in the goods.. In most trade transactions1, ownership transfers from seller to buyer at the point of PAYMENT.. Once the buyer pays for the goods, the goods legally belong to them.. Full stop..
But while a buyer who has PAID for the goods is the legal owner, they may not yet hold the Document of Title, and without it they cannot take delivery of the goods they own.. Their payment is just the EVIDENCE of their ownership, not the Document of Title..
So the two things, the document and the ownership, travel on different tracks..
Ownership answers the question of WHO the goods belong to, which in most cases is the party who has PAID for them..
Document of Title answers the question of WHO can take delivery of the goods..
These two questions can have DIFFERENT answers at the same point in time..
A bank financing a trade transaction will often hold the original Bill of Lading as security for its loan.. As the holder of the Document of Title, the bank controls delivery until the buyer settles their dues, but it is NOT the owner of the goods.. The buyer owns the goods the moment they make payment.. But they cannot touch those goods until the bank releases the Document of Title.. And that is exactly the security the bank is relying on..
Here is a question worth asking
Does the carrier verify ownership before releasing the goods..??
The short answer is NO, and that is by design..
The carrier is NOT obligated to investigate who owns the goods, just as it is NOT the bank’s obligation to verify whether goods have actually been shipped.. Under the contract of carriage, the carrier simply delivers the goods to whoever presents the original Bill of Lading in good order, duly endorsed where required..
They do not ask for payment receipts, sales contracts, or proof of ownership.. The Document of Title IS their authority to release, and that is where their responsibility begins and ends..
This is exactly why the Bill of Lading is such a powerful document.. It is also why misuse or mishandling of it can cause so much damage..
If a carrier releases goods to the wrong party, the argument that “but we own the goods” does NOT automatically hold up.. Their obligation is to deliver to the holder of the Document of Title, NOT necessarily to the owner of the goods..
A carrier who releases goods without the consignee first surrendering the original Bill of Lading takes on significant legal and financial exposure, even when a Letter of Indemnity is provided..
This distinction becomes critically important in cargo disputes, insurance claims, and cases where a carrier releases cargo without the original Bill of Lading..
So what is the key takeaway here..??
PAYMENT establishes ownership in most cases.. The Document of Title controls ACCESS to the goods.. The carrier verifies the DOCUMENT, not the ownership.. These are separate concepts, governed by separate sets of rules..
Mixing them up or assuming they are the same thing can lead to serious commercial and legal consequences for everyone in the chain, whether you are a shipper, consignee, freight forwarder, carrier or a bank..
1 There are transactions where ownership transfers before payment or even without payment altogether.. Open Account trading requires no bank involvement, though a bank may participate in some cases through invoice financing or factoring.. The seller sends documents directly to the buyer, with ownership and access to goods transferring well before payment follows on agreed terms.. With Documents against Acceptance, the collecting bank releases documents upon the buyer accepting a draft, a signed promise to pay at a future date, with no upfront payment required.. Barter, consignment, inheritance and court-ordered transfers are cases where ownership moves without any payment at all.. So “at the point of payment” is the most common trigger, but it is certainly not the only one..
The Strait of Hormuz has always been in the background of every conversation about global energy security.. Most people in shipping and freight know it as a chokepoint, the kind where roughly 20% of the world’s oil and LNG passes through every single day..
But it has now moved very much to the front of that conversation into a veritable toll booth..
It has been reported that the Iranian Parliament approved a plan to collect tolls on ships travelling through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iranian state media..
The proposal, which was brought before parliament earlier this month, would require agreement from other countries on either side of the strait. While the report did not specify how much the tolls would be, it made it clear that ships associated with the US, Israel, and countries that sanctioned Iran would not be able to pass under the new plan..
Iran has effectively closed the waterway to Western shipping since the start of the conflict.. The toll plan now seeks to formalise that control..
Don’t other countries share the strait too..??
This is a question that came to mind immediately because the Strait of Hormuz has TWO coastlines.. Iran sits on the northern bank.. On the southern bank sits the Musandam Peninsula, shared between the UAE and Oman’s Musandam Governorate..
As per UNCLOS Section 2 Art.3, each coastal state controls up to 12 nautical miles from its shoreline.. The strait at its narrowest point is only about 21 miles wide, which means Iranian and Omani territorial waters overlap and cover the entire width of the strait.. Both countries have a legal stake in it..
So why does Iran get to run a toll booth on it..??
The answer is geography combined with military positioning.. Iran controls the entire northern shoreline and key islands right at the mouth of the strait, including Qeshm, Hormuz, Hengam, and Larak.. This gives Tehran surveillance dominance and the ability to monitor and disrupt traffic in ways that Oman, on the southern bank, simply cannot match..
Oman has maintained neutral diplomatic ties throughout the conflict and has given no public indication that it endorses Iran’s toll plan.. The plan mentions cooperation with Oman in establishing a legal framework for the strait, according to Iranian state media IRIB.. Whether it gets it is a very different question..
What does international law say and reactions..??
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Strait of Hormuz is an international strait, which means all ships have the right of transit passage, free of charge and free of prior approval..
Reactions have been varied and critical as can be expected..
As we have seen, the IRGC has not been waiting around for the law to be approved.. As reported, a de facto toll booth regime imposed by the IRGC has been underway since around mid-March 2026, requiring ships to submit cargo details, ownership, destination, and crew lists to approved IRGC intermediaries before being escorted through..
While traffic through the strait has fallen by roughly 90% since the start of the conflict, ships from China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan have been allowed to transit freely while everyone else seems to have to negotiate.. At least two ships have already paid for passage, with payment settled in Chinese Yuan..
The international response has been firm.. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the plan “illegal, unacceptable and dangerous to the world..” G7 foreign ministers called for the restoration of safe and toll-free freedom of navigation.. UN Security Council Resolution 2817, adopted on 11 March 2026, already condemned Iran’s actions and framed any attempt to impede transit passage as a serious threat to international peace and security..
What does this mean for shipping and freight..??
The Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a geography question on a trade lane.. It is now a political and financial variable in every cargo calculation involving the Persian Gulf.. The toll plan, combined with the IRGC’s already operational vetting system, has made passage through the Strait of Hormuz a toll based passed much like the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, but with a side of discrimination.. It is a negotiation in which Iran will ask for more..
For freight forwarders and shippers, the question is no longer simply “can my cargo pass through..??” The question now is “at what cost, under what conditions, and who decides..??”
What are your thoughts on Iran’s toll plan for the Strait of Hormuz..?? Share them in the comments below..
If you work in shipping, you may have heard of the Jones Act in the USA.. The US government’s decision to waive it in March 2026 brought it back into mainstream conversation.. Here is what it is, why it was waived, and what that means..
What is the Jones Act..??
The Jones Act, which refers to Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (P.L. 66-261), prescribes that only vessels built in the United States, owned by US citizens, flagged in the US, and crewed by Americans can carry cargo between US domestic ports, including Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico..
The law has been in place for over 100 years and covers all ship and cargo types.. containers, tankers, dry bulk, and barges on inland waterways.. If cargo moves by water between two US points, the Jones Act applies..
How does it work in practice..??
A foreign container ship from Rotterdam can call New York, Savannah, and Miami on the same voyage.. That is perfectly legal.. It is discharging international cargo at each port, and the movement is international trade..
What it cannot do is pick up a loaded container in New York and deliver it to Savannah.. That is domestic coastwise trade, and it requires a Jones Act qualified vessel..
Once loaded containers of imports are discharged from a ship at a US port, Jones Act-compliant vessels must be used if the cargo is transshipped by water to other US ports.. Transshipment of international containerised cargo by feeder ships is prevalent abroad but the practice does not exist in the United States.. Instead, essentially all movement of containers between ports in the contiguous United States occurs by truck or train..
Why does it exist..??
Two reasons get cited most often.. Economic protection and national security..
On the economic side, the idea is to protect American shipbuilding, American seafarers, and American maritime businesses from foreign competition.. A foreign-flagged operator running cheaper crews under lower regulatory standards would easily undercut any US carrier on price.. The Jones Act prevents that..
On the national security side, the argument is that the US needs a functioning domestic fleet and a trained pool of merchant mariners that can support military logistics in a crisis.. Both arguments have merit, but both also have serious holes in them..
The pros and cons of the Jones Act
The case for it (pros) is real.. It keeps US shipyards open, sustains maritime training programmes, and ensures some level of domestic sealift capability.. Without it, American coastal waters would be open to any foreign-flagged vessel with no obligation to meet US safety, labour, or environmental standards..
The case against it (cons) is equally real.. US-built ships cost several times more than equivalent vessels built abroad, and those costs pass straight through to consumers.. Hawaii residents are estimated to pay around $1.2 billion a year in higher costs attributable to the Jones Act.. Container shipping from the US mainland to Puerto Rico costs roughly double what it costs to ship the same box to a nearby foreign port that is actually further away..
The fleet has also been shrinking despite the law being in place.. According to MARAD data, the Jones Act container fleet stood at around 23 vessels as of 2023.. In a global container fleet of over 6,000 ships, that is a fraction of 1%..
What does the 2026 waiver mean..??
While the Jones Act intends to maintain a merchant marine to serve as a military auxiliary in times of war or national emergency, Congress has also authorised waivers in the interest of national defence.. The executive branch has previously used this provision for fuel resupply after natural disasters.. It is under this same provision that the 2026 waiver was issued..
US and Israeli military operations against Iran commenced on February 28, 2026, under Operation Epic Fury, effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which approximately one-fifth of global oil and LNG supplies transit.. With global supply disrupted and the small Jones Act fleet unable to compensate, the administration needed to open up additional vessel capacity quickly..
On March 17, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security issued a 60-day waiver at the request of the Department of War.. Confirmed by CBP via CSMS #68096516 on March 19, 2026, the waiver covers at least 659 product categories, including crude oil, refined petroleum products, natural gas, fertiliser, and coal, allowing foreign-flagged vessels to carry these commodities between US ports until 11:59 PM EDT on May 17, 2026..
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated the waiver was issued to “mitigate the short-term disruptions to the oil market as the US military continues meeting the objectives of Operation Epic Fury..”
Will it bring fuel prices down..??
Modestly at best.. Analysts estimate the waiver might offset price increases by somewhere between 3 and 10 cents per gallon.. The real problem is a closed strait carrying over 20 million barrels a day of global supply.. No amount of domestic shipping flexibility fixes that..
What the waiver tells us
The Jones Act can only be waived through one legal provision.. national defence under 46 U.S.C. § 501(a).. The law provides no mechanism for an economic waiver.. So whatever the underlying reason, every request must go through that door..
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Katrina, Rita, Sandy, Maria………… and now a war.. Every serious supply shock in recent memory has required that same door to be opened..
The question that remains unanswered is why a law that needs to be suspended every time it is genuinely tested, is considered fit for purpose the rest of the time, when cargo moves more slowly and more expensively because of the very constraints it imposes..
This current waiver expires May 17, 2026.. That question will still be there on May 18..
Anyone who has worked around offshore logistics knows one simple truth: things rarely go exactly according to plan.
A supply vessel can be delayed by weather. A helicopter flight gets cancelled. A part that looked non-urgent yesterday suddenly becomes critical because something failed on the platform overnight. When operations sit 100 or 200 kilometers offshore, even a small disruption can quickly turn into a bigger operational problem.
That is why risk management in offshore logistics comes down to preparation. The teams that keep operations running as they should usually focus on three practical areas: clear operational visibility, strong safety and compliance discipline, and enough flexibility in the system to handle disruptions when they happen.
Visibility
A common challenge in offshore supply operations is that information lives in different places.
The warehouse knows what cargo is ready. The marine team knows where the vessel is. The platform knows what equipment is urgently needed, but unless those pieces of information come together, decisions become slower and mistakes start creeping in.
Consider a fairly typical situation at a shore base.
A supply vessel is scheduled to depart early in the morning with drilling chemicals and maintenance equipment. Overnight, bad weather delays the vessel’s arrival at port. At the same time, the platform reports that an additional spare part is urgently needed on the next sailing.
If the warehouse, marine planner, and offshore team are not working from the same information, the vessel may either leave without the urgent part or sit idle while everyone tries to figure out what is happening.
A lot of the confusion in offshore logistics comes from a pretty simple problem: everyone’s looking at different information. So, for instance, one team is watching vessel schedules, another is checking cargo readiness, and someone offshore is wondering where their parts are, which is not exactly a recipe for practical operations.
But when all live in the same planning system, things start to make a lot more sense and suddenly the whole logistics team can see what’s actually going on. And once everyone’s looking at the same picture, adjusting the plan isn’t such a big deal anymore. Maybe the vessel sails a little earlier or later. Maybe the urgent part goes out on a helicopter instead. It’s just what happens when people stop working with half the information.
The Rules Exist for a Reason
Offshore logistics deals with materials and operations that carry real risks.
Many cargo shipments include hazardous chemicals, pressurized equipment, or specialized tools that must be handled under strict transport regulations. On top of that, cargo is often transferred by crane between moving vessels and offshore platforms, sometimes in challenging sea conditions.
Because of that, safety and compliance procedures are what keep operations running safely.
Take dangerous goods documentation as an example. If a shipment of drilling chemicals arrives at the quayside without the correct paperwork or labeling, it cannot be loaded. The vessel waits, the cargo gets rechecked, and the offshore site may end up waiting longer than expected for supplies.
Situations like this are common enough in offshore logistics, and they usually happen because a small step earlier in the process was missed.
Teams that avoid these problems tend to treat safety checks as part of everyday logistics work rather than a final step before loading. Warehouse staff are trained to identify hazardous materials correctly. Documentation is verified well before the cargo reaches the vessel. Marine crews receive clear loading plans.
Those routines may feel repetitive, but they prevent the kind of mistakes that can delay operations or create serious safety risks offshore.
Expect the Unexpected
If there is one lesson offshore logistics teaches repeatedly, it is that disruptions are inevitable. Weather closes ports. Equipment fails. Flights get cancelled. A single mechanical issue on a supply vessel can shift an entire delivery schedule.
If an operation depends on just one transport option or only one service provider, it usually gets hit the hardest when something goes wrong. People who’ve been doing logistics for a while normally try to build in some backup options, which could mean working with more than one vessel company, keeping extra stock of critical parts at the shore base, or having helicopters available for urgent matters.
Take, for instance, the following example: a really important pump breaks on a production platform. The replacement part might actually be sitting at the shore base already, which is good, but now it still has to get out to the platform fast. And then you realize the next supply vessel isn’t leaving for another two days. Needless to say, not ideal. So that’s where having backup transport options can save the day.
Without alternatives, the platform may have to wait. But if helicopter transport or a standby vessel is available, the part can reach the platform much sooner. Having these options in place does come with additional cost, but when offshore production is involved, the cost of downtime is usually far higher.
Why This Matters Offshore
Risk management for offshore oil and gas logistics is a strategic differentiator. Basically, every spare part, tool, chemical, or supply has to get from the shore out to the offshore installation safely and on time, and, if the logistics system has good visibility, takes safety as seriously as they possibly can, and is willing to adapt when things go wrong, everything runs better. This way, the logistics team doesn’t have to constantly scramble to fix problems that could’ve been avoided.
None of this is really new because most people who’ve worked in logistics for a while already get it. But in offshore operations, the difference between things running well and total chaos usually comes down to how consistently those basics are actually followed.
Out there, conditions can change fast, and there’s not much room for mistakes, which is why the simple things like visibility, safety, and being able to handle disruptions are still the key to keeping offshore logistics reliable.
When someone buys a smartphone in South Africa, Germany, or Brazil, nobody refers to it as a “foreign-owned phone”.. It is simply a product made by a global company and sold to customers around the world..
Yet this logic does not seem to apply to shipping, particularly container shipping, where in recent years a phrase has begun appearing frequently in political discussions about global trade and supply chains = “foreign-owned shipping lines”..
The term has surfaced repeatedly over the last decade during periods of disruption, when freight rates rise sharply, container shortages emerge, or a country’s maritime dominance becomes a concern..
In such moments, policymakers and industry groups point to the role of foreign carriers in transporting a country’s imports and exports..
Considering that many of the world’s largest container shipping companies are indeed headquartered outside the countries whose trade they carry, the term may appear reasonable..
However, the political narrative that often develops from this observation does not always reflect how the liner shipping industry actually works..
Who actually owns the world’s container shipping lines..??
While the term “foreign-owned shipping lines” is often used in a political context that implies control by foreign governments, most major container shipping companies are privately owned commercial enterprises, not state-run national fleets..
Shareholding structures in large shipping companies typically include a mix of institutional investors, strategic partners, and public shareholders, sometimes including government-linked entities..
However, several of the world’s largest carriers still reflect the influence of their founding families or original ownership groups.. For example:
MSC (Mediterranean Shipping Company) is privately owned by the Aponte family, headquartered in Switzerland..
A.P. Moller – Maersk has historically been controlled through Danish family foundations linked to the founding Møller family..
CMA CGM remains majority controlled by the French Saadé family..
Hapag-Lloyd is publicly listed with a mix of institutional and strategic shareholders, including German investors..
Evergreen Marine traces its origins to the Chang family in Taiwan..
Ocean Network Express is a joint venture formed by the container divisions of three Japanese carriers, NYK, MOL, and K-Line..
A few countries do operate state-linked or government-owned shipping lines.. As an example, China operates COSCO Shipping as a state-owned enterprise, India has the Shipping Corporation of India, although not dominant in the global container shipping sector..
Even in these cases, the companies operate commercially within global liner networks and could not realistically carry the entirety of their country’s imports and exports on their own, so there will ALWAYS be a foreign-owned shipping line.. Get used to it..
How container shipping actually works
Container shipping functions as a global transport system connecting multiple economies simultaneously, and the global nature of the business often contradicts the political narrative..
A single container shipment may involve cargo manufactured in one country, packed in another, into a container manufactured in yet another country, transported on a vessel owned in a different jurisdiction, financed by banks elsewhere, crewed by seafarers from several nations, and delivered to a completely different market..
Ships themselves may be chartered from independent owners of different nationalities, registered under different flags, including flags of convenience that play no role in commercial shipping decisions..
In practice, vessels move continuously between trade routes, linking production centres, distribution hubs, and consumer markets across continents..
The real questions policymakers should ask
Focusing on whether shipping lines are “foreign”, risks oversimplifying the issue..
The more relevant questions that policymakers must ask relate to how maritime transport markets function and, more importantly, what each country must realistically consider if it seeks greater control over its maritime transport..
Do you really want a government-owned shipping line..??
Could such a line realistically carry all your country’s cargo..??
How many ships would a government need to own to achieve that..??
Can private companies in your country build, own, and flag the vessels your trade requires..??
How can the government facilitate this..??
Are shipping markets competitive and transparent..??
Do your exporters and importers currently have sufficient carrier options, or should more “foreign-owned shipping lines” be encouraged to serve your ports..??
Are pricing structures and surcharges communicated clearly..??
Do regulatory frameworks balance commercial flexibility with shipper protection..??
Your carrier has declared End of Voyage and your container is sitting at a port you never planned for.. The carrier has walked away, charges are ticking, and the buyer is waiting.. Here are 8 practical options to deal with stranded cargo and what you need to do NOW..
In the previous article, we discussed what “End of Voyage” means, where the authority for it comes from, and why the 2026 Gulf crisis is the first time we have seen this term applied at scale..
But understanding what happened is only half the problem.. The more pressing question for thousands of cargo owners right now is: what do I actually do next..??
Your container was supposed to arrive at Jebel Ali, Dammam, or Hamad Port.. Instead, the carrier has discharged it in Salalah, Mundra, Colombo, or somewhere you have never done business before..
The carrier has walked away..
You have been charged an End of Voyage fee by the carrier, and on top of that, the Demurrage, Detention and Port Storage charges are ticking..
You should also be aware that this problem is bound to spread because carrier networks are interconnected and the disruption might not stay within the Gulf..
Containers will pile up at unplanned discharge ports, export yards in the Gulf backing up with no vessels to load, blank sailings across the region, sailing schedules in disarray..
The effects on vessel availability and on-time performance will hit multiple trade lanes in the weeks ahead..
So, what are the options if your shipment has reached End of Voyage..?? Here are some things you can do..
First, review your sales contract and Incoterms® chosen clearly to identify who bears this End of Voyage risk and costs – you as a seller or you as a buyer.. Once you know whether if the risk and costs lie with you, choose from the options below (click to expand)..
1 Arrange onward movement yourself
Try to get the cargo to its original destination by rebooking with another carrier that may still be servicing this route, using third-party feeder services, or arranging cross-border trucking.. As an example, cargo discharged in Oman could potentially move overland to the UAE.. You will have to find options that suit your contract and your pocket.. As holder of the document of title, you will bear the additional costs under most carriers’ conditions of carriage..
2 Unpack the cargo
You should consider unpacking the cargo wherever it was discharged so as to release the empty container back to the carrier.. This immediately reduces your unbudgeted costs of demurrage, detention, port storage etc.. You could then consider moving the cargo by road if possible.. Alternatively, store the goods at a warehouse which may be less expensive for you than storing in the container.. Do the calculations to check which works best for you..
3 Reroute via a different port for a different buyer
Find a different destination outside of the Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf region where your cargo may have a market and redirect the container to that destination from where it has been discharged.. Example: Container discharged in Salalah instead of Jebel Ali, but you have found a customer in India..
4 Find a new buyer locally
If the cargo cannot move forward and the original buyer cannot wait, selling locally at the forced discharge port may be viable.. Contact your country’s embassy or consulate (commercial section), the local chamber of commerce, your national trade promotion agency, or your freight forwarder’s local office.. They may be able to assist with this.. Be aware, however, of different import duties, product standards, and labelling requirements at this location..
5 Check your cargo insurance
Notify your insurer immediately.. Under the Termination of Contract of Carriage clause in the Institute Cargo Clauses, if the carrier terminates the voyage at a port other than the named destination, your insurance also terminates by default.. However, the clause gives you the right to request continuation of cover, and if you do, the insurer cannot refuse, although they may charge an additional premium.. This gives you up to 60 days of continued cover from the date cargo arrives at the unplanned port.. Without this notification, you are uninsured.. Do this now..Check with your insurer or broker whether your cover includes war risks, either as part of the policy or as a separate add-on.. Without it, your options may be limited.. Standard cargo clauses and even war clauses exclude claims where the cargo is undamaged, but the voyage has been frustrated..
Check if you can claim forwarding charges or a constructive total loss.. Your broker can advise..
6 Abandon the cargo
If the value of the goods is low relative to the cost of rerouting, or if the goods are perishable and past their shelf life, cargo abandonment may be the most rational and only choice.. You will still need to settle outstanding demurrage, detention, storage, unpack and disposal charges, and comply with local customs and disposal regulations.. It could be cheaper than rerouting it elsewhere or letting the cargo sit..
7 Return the cargo to the origin
Ship the goods back home.. This makes sense if there is a domestic market for them and the commercial relationship with the original buyer cannot be fulfilled.. You are paying for a new shipment entirely.. Sometimes this may be the cheaper option..
8 Store and wait
For high-value goods with a committed buyer, it may make sense to wait it out to see how the situation evolves.. Probably the buyer also has a vested interest in getting the cargo once the situation has returned to normal.. But even if you wait, you must notify your insurer.. The 60-day clock is running (under the Termination of Contract of Carriage clause in the Institute Cargo Clauses, your cover continues for only 60 days from the date cargo arrives at the unplanned port, subject to an additional premium, after which it lapses)..
What you should do RIGHT NOW..
While you are considering which option to choose, if your cargo has been affected, DO THIS NOW:
Check your Incoterms rule to understand who bears the risk..
Call your insurer and check for continuation of cover under the Termination of Contract of Carriage clause..
Contact your freight forwarder for the latest port conditions at the port where container was discharged and alternative ports you may be interested in..
Contact your trade partner (seller if you are buyer and vice versa) to update the situation and understand their position..
Contact your bank if the shipment is operating under an LC..
The carriers have exercised their contractual right.. Whether it was exercised fairly may be tested in court one day.. But right now, what helps is action, not waiting..
My Take
The 2026 Gulf crisis will likely be the event that forces courts to define the boundaries of the contract of carriage clauses that carriers rely on to terminate voyages.. Until now, these clauses existed quietly in the fine print.. No one tested them at scale because no situation required it..
Now they have been applied across an entire trade lane, affecting hundreds of thousands of containers simultaneously, and the legal, insurance, and commercial consequences are playing out in real time.. If there is one takeaway from this situation, it is that every cargo owner needs to read their bill of lading terms before they need to, and discuss their options in the future with their insurer..
Article FAQ
What is End of Voyage, and what does it mean for my cargo..??
End of Voyage is an operational declaration by a carrier to terminate a voyage before reaching the contractual port of discharge.. The carrier discharges your cargo at the nearest safe port and walks away.. You are left to arrange onward movement at your own cost.. The authority comes from the carrier’s Conditions of Carriage on the bill of lading, not from any maritime law convention..
Why does my cargo insurance not automatically cover stranded cargo..??
The Institute Cargo Clauses exclude claims based on “frustration of the voyage or adventure”.. Undamaged cargo stuck at the wrong port is exactly that.. This exclusion also appears in the Institute War Clauses, so even war risks cover may not help for a pure frustration claim.. Your insurance also terminates by default when the carrier terminates the voyage unless you request continuation..
Who covers the freetime and storage costs at the alternate port where the container was discharged..??
This situation was neither created by you nor was the alternate port requested by you.. Therefore, you can request the carrier in writing to apply the same free time allowance and tariff conditions at the alternate port as those that applied at your original contracted port of discharge.. But of course, also be aware that the tariffs at the alternate port may also be less compared to the original port..
Where do I return the empty container if my voyage was terminated at an alternate port..??
The container belongs to the carrier and therefore as normal, the carrier should provide you with the nearest designated empty return depot to the port where the voyage was terminated.. You need not return it to the original port of discharge in this case.. Get written confirmation from the carrier of the return location before you do anything..
The term “End of Voyage” is an operational declaration by a carrier to terminate a voyage short of the contractual port of discharge.. It is not a legal doctrine in Maritime law, but relies on the authority carriers have under their standard Conditions of Carriage..
What is “End of Voyage” and where does it appear in law..??
As you might have seen, a few container carriers issued advisories in the last few days/weeks advising that vessels bound for the Arabian Gulf or Persian Gulf covering UAE, Qatar, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, and Oman have reached “End of Voyage“..
End of Voyage refers to the operational fact that the declared ship(s) which are currently en route to the Arabian Gulf or Persian Gulf will be diverted to the next safe port of discharge, where the cargo will be discharged and placed at the disposal of the cargo interest for its further movement..
In short, it means that the carrier will have no further involvement with the movement of this cargo, and the shipper is left to their own devices to take delivery of their cargo from wherever the cargo is discharged..
If you, however, search for the term “End of Voyage” in any maritime legal framework or convention of carriage like the Hague Rules, the Hague-Visby Rules, the Hamburg Rules, or the Rotterdam Rules, you will find nothing..
It has no definition in maritime statutes, does not appear in the standard legal tests applied by admiralty courts when examining cargo disputes..
So where does this term and its authority come from, and what are the carriers relying on..
The authority comes from the Bill of Lading, not from maritime law
Although the term “End of Voyage” may be new to many, the concept has been around for years as part of the terms and conditions of the bill of lading..
The legal basis for stopping a voyage short of the contractual port of discharge and not proceeding further, falls under clauses like “METHODS AND ROUTES OF CARRIAGE ” and “MATTERS ADVERSELY AFFECTING CARRIER’S PERFORMANCE ” which are incorporated into contracts of carriage through the booking confirmation and the Bill of Lading terms..
The clauses read like below, for example (only relevant portions quoted and highlighted)
9. METHODS AND ROUTES OF CARRIAGE
9.1 The Carrier may at any time and without notice to the Merchant:
(d) load and unload the Goods at any place or port (whether or not any such port is named on the front hereof as the Port of Loading or Port of Discharge) and store the Goods at any such port or place, including but not limited to the use of off-dock storage at any port;
9.2 The liberties set out in clause 9.1 may be invoked by the Carrier for any purpose whatsoever whether or not connected with the carriage of the Goods, including but not limited to loading or unloading other goods, bunkering or embarking or disembarking any Person(s), undergoing repairs and/or drydocking, towing or being towed, assisting other vessels, making trial trips and adjusting instruments. Anything done or not done in accordance with clause 9.1 or any delay arising therefrom shall be deemed to be within the contractual carriage and shall not be a deviation.
19.1 If at any time the carriage is or is likely to be affected by any hindrance, risk, danger, delay, difficulty or disadvantage of whatsoever kind and howsoever arising which cannot be avoided by the Carrier by the exercise of reasonable endeavours, (even though the circumstances giving rise to such hindrance, risk, danger, delay, difficulty or disadvantage existed at the time this contract was entered into or the Goods were received for the carriage) the Carrier may at its sole discretion and without notice to the Merchant and whether or not the carriage is commenced either:
(c) abandon the carriage of the Goods and place them at the Merchant’s disposal at any place or port which the Carrier may deem safe and convenient,or from which the Carrier is unable by the exercise of reasonable endeavours to continue the carriage, whereupon the responsibility of the Carrier in respect of such Goods shall cease. The Carrier shall nevertheless be entitled to full Freight on the Goods received for the carriage, and the Merchant shall pay any additional costs incurred by reason of the abandonment of the Goods. If the Carrier elects to use an alternative route under clause 19.1 (a) or to suspend the carriage under clause 19.1 (b) this shall not prejudice its right subsequently to abandon the carriage. 19.2 If the Carrier elects to invoke the terms of this clause 19, then notwithstanding the provisions of clause 9, the Carrier shall be entitled to such additional Freight and costs as the Carrier may determine.
13. INSPECTION OF GOODS AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
(this is the one MSC has relied on in its declaration of end of voyage)
Special circumstances – If it appears at any time that the Goods cannot safely or properly be carried or carried further, either at all or without incurring any additional expense or taking any measures in relation to the Container or the Goods, the Carrier may without notice to the Merchant (but as his agent only) take any measures and/or incur any reasonable additional expense to carry or to continue the carriage of the Goods, and/or to sell or dispose of them and/or to abandon the carriage and/or to store them ashore or afloat, under cover or in the open, at any place, whichever the Carrier in its absolute discretion considers most appropriate, and any sale, disposal, abandonment or storage shall be deemed to constitute due delivery under this Bill of Lading. The Merchant shall indemnify the Carrier against any additional expense so incurred. The Carrier in exercising the liberties contained in this clause shall not be under any obligation to take any particular measures and shall not be liable for any loss, delay or damage howsoever arising from any action or lack of action under this clause.
* Disclaimer: The above numbers and wordings are from MSC’s contract of carriage terms and conditions and differ from those of other carriers.. Refer to your actual bill of lading to see which clauses and wordings are used..
Has “End of Voyage” ever been declared before in maritime history..??
While the contractual rights mentioned above have always existed, the use of the phrase “End of Voyage” applied simultaneously across an entire trade lane, at scale, with mass public communications, appears to be specific to the current situation..
Previous conflicts in the Middle East, Gulf, or other wars did not produce the same response, and the reason is pretty straightforward.. The Strait of Hormuz was never fully closed to commercial traffic..
During the Gulf War of 1990-91, Saudi Arabian ports including Al Jubail and Ad Dammam remained operational and accessible throughout the conflict.. Commercial vessels continued to complete contractual voyages to the destination..
There was no situation requiring carriers to declare, at scale, that voyages to an entire region were terminated..
During the Iran-Iraq Tanker War of the 1980s, commercial container volumes through the Gulf were a fraction of today’s levels..
Carriers managed disruption voyage by voyage, without the mass digital advisory communications that now notify thousands of cargo owners simultaneously..
The operational scale and the communications infrastructure that makes a public declaration necessary simply did not exist..
What is different in 2026 is not the contractual right, which has always been there..
What is different is the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic, the scale of modern containerised trade through the Gulf, the real-time digital visibility that carrier decisions now carry globally, and the commercial necessity of communicating voyage termination to a worldwide customer base at once..
The phrase “End of Voyage” is new language for an old contractual mechanism, applied in a new operational environment..
Whether a cargo owner can challenge an “End of Voyage” declaration is genuinely uncharted territory.. Because the term does not exist in any Bill of Lading or maritime convention, there is no established legal precedent specifically addressing it..
That question has not been tested in court.. The 2026 Gulf crisis may well be the event that eventually forces it into litigation and creates the precedent that does not yet exist..
My Take
Thirty-seven years in this industry and I have not come across the term “End of Voyage”.. It is not a legal term, but the contractual mechanism behind it is very real and has existed in the Bill of Lading for decades..
What is new is the scale, the simultaneity, and the public branding of it as a named event.. Cargo owners with goods destined for the Arabian Gulf need to understand one thing clearly.. It is that, the carrier’s responsibility for your cargo ends the moment it invokes that clause and discharges at an alternative port..
What happens next is entirely your problem to solve as a shipper.. Read your Bill of Lading, read the specific clauses, and speak to your Maritime Lawyer about what options you have for onward movement and any potential claims..
Article FAQ
Is “End of Voyage” a legal term in shipping..??
No.. “End of Voyage” is an operational declaration by a carrier.. It does not appear in any maritime legal framework or international convention, including the Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules, Hamburg Rules, or Rotterdam Rules.. It is not a term defined in maritime statutes or recognised by admiralty courts..
Does a carrier have the right to stop my shipment short of destination..??
Yes.. The authority comes from two clauses in the carrier’s Conditions of Carriage incorporated into the Bill of Lading, one covering Methods and Routes of Carriage and one covering Matters Adversely Affecting Carrier’s Performance.. These clauses allow the carrier to discharge the carriage at any port it deems safe and convenient, retain full freight, and cease all responsibility for the cargo.. These are not new clauses.. They have been standard features of carrier Bills of Lading for decades..
Has a carrier ever stopped an entire trade lane before..??
Not like this.. During the Gulf War of 1990-91 and the Iran-Iraq Tanker War of the 1980s, carriers continued completing voyages or managed disruption voyage by voyage.. Neither conflict produced the combination of factors that exist in 2026, effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the scale of modern containerised trade, and the need to notify a worldwide customer base simultaneously..
Can I challenge my carrier’s End of Voyage declaration..??
This is genuinely uncharted territory.. Because the term does not exist in any Bill of Lading or maritime convention, there is no established legal precedent specifically addressing it.. The 2026 Gulf crisis may be the first event to force this question into litigation..
Global shipping today is no longer just about freight rates, port calls, and vessel schedules..
Regulators that were once seen as technical oversight bodies now find themselves navigating a much broader environment where maritime logistics intersects with international relations, economic competitiveness, and supply chain stability..
In this edition of Executive Insights, Shipping and Freight Resource speaks with Laura DiBella, Chairperson of the Federal Maritime Commission, about the evolving role of maritime regulators, the lessons learned from recent supply chain disruptions, and how the FMC is adapting to a rapidly changing global trade environment..
HM : When you took over as the Chair of the FMC, what did you believe most urgently needed to change at the FMC..??
LDB: I would not necessarily say something needed to change. What needed to be reinforced was the global perspective of the Commission.
COVID really changed the game for everyone in the supply chain world, including regulators. We realised very clearly that we are not operating on an island in the United States. What happens halfway around the world can have a very real impact on the U.S. economy and on American importers and exporters.
So, it is important for us not only to focus on what is happening in our immediate environment but also to pay close attention to global developments.
HM: You have described the FMC as evolving into something closer to a consumer protection agency.. What does that mean in practical terms for shippers and freight buyers..??
LDB : At its core, our role is about protecting the U.S. importer and exporter.
Sometimes people view regulators purely as enforcement bodies that issue penalties or judgments. But our mission goes beyond that.
We are there to ensure that the marketplace operates fairly and efficiently so that businesses, large or small, can compete on a level playing field.
Whether the shipper is a large multinational company or a small exporter entering global trade for the first time, our responsibility is the same. We want to ensure they can do business in an environment that is fair, efficient, and economically viable.
HM: Regulators are usually reactive by design. Yet you have spoken about making the FMC more proactive.. How do you shift that mindset without overstepping regulatory boundaries..??
LDB: I encourage our teams to look for patterns, signals, and emerging risks.
One of the most important tools we have is investigation. Investigations allow us to unpack not only issues that have already occurred, but also those that may arise in the future.
Currently, we have several investigations underway, including work around maritime chokepoints, flags of convenience, and other structural issues within the global shipping system.
These investigations help us understand potential vulnerabilities and ensure that we are prepared if disruptions occur.
HM: You mentioned investigations into maritime chokepoints, which are mostly geopolitical issues.. What influence can the FMC realistically have in such situations..??
LDB: In many cases, our role is not to lead geopolitical decision-making but to serve as a trusted source of expertise.
Agencies such as the State Department or Homeland Security may lead on the geopolitical front.
What the FMC provides is deep maritime knowledge. We understand the operational realities of the shipping industry, and we can provide valuable insight that helps inform decision-making.
There is a lot of misinformation in the maritime space, and our job is to ensure that policymakers have accurate, expert information when they are making critical decisions.
HM: When the FMC investigates foreign governments or port access issues, where is the line between regulation and foreign policy..??
LDB: That line can sometimes be blurred.
However, we remain very clear about the role we play.
Strong communication with partner agencies is essential. We ensure that we operate within the regulatory responsibilities assigned to us while supporting broader government priorities through information sharing and collaboration.
HM: Two years after the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, have things genuinely improved for shippers. And what still needs fixing..??
LDB: Overall, I do believe things have improved.
There were many lessons learned from the disruptions during the pandemic. Today we are better prepared should a similar shock occur.
At the same time, shipping has evolved. Trade lanes have changed, supply chains have reorganised and new operational challenges have emerged.
In many ways, we are dealing with an entirely new set of dynamics compared to a few years ago.
So while improvements have been made, the work is ongoing. Supply chains are constantly evolving and regulators must evolve with them.
HM: Having completed six World Marathon Majors and holding the record for the most overall female wins in the Seven Mile Bridge Run in the Florida Keys, what has distance running taught you about leading through complex challenges..??
LDB: Distance running is a powerful metaphor for life and leadership.
It teaches you that progress comes from consistent effort over time.
Not every day is perfect. Some days require more effort than others. But if you remain focused on the long-term goal and continue to put in the work, the results will follow.
You cannot expect to run a marathon without preparation. The same applies to leadership and to complex challenges in the maritime world.
Ultimately, what you put into the effort is what you will get out of it.
Shipping and Freight Resource wishes FMC Chair Laura DiBella, all of the very best in her new role..
Walk through any busy port, distribution hub, or interstate corridor today, and one thing becomes clear: freight is moving faster, farther, and in higher volumes than ever before. As e-commercecontinues to reshape buying habits and delivery expectations rise, warehouse operations sit squarely at the center of this momentum.
Industry data consistently shows steady growth in freight volumes across land, sea, and air, signaling that logistics networks are under constant pressure to expand and adapt.
Against this backdrop, many shippers are rethinking how they scale — and increasingly, third-party logistics outsourcing is emerging as the model that keeps growth steady and operations agile.
At its core, 3PL outsourcing is about focus. It allows businesses to hand off the complexity of storage, fulfillment, and distribution to specialists while concentrating their own energy on sales, product development, and customer relationships.
One of its greatest benefits is that it creates a supply chain that’s lighter, faster, and more responsive, which is exactly what modern markets demand. Three key factors explain why this model continues to gain traction.
Built-for-Scale Infrastructure That Keeps Freight Moving
Warehouses designed for internal use often evolve gradually, adapting space and processes over time. Third-party logistics facilities, by contrast, are engineered from the ground up to move inventory efficiently.
TheKase Dallas fulfillment center, located in one of the country’s most active transportation corridors, reflects this purpose-built approach. With direct access to major highways and air freight routes, inventory flows in and out with a rhythm that supports high-volume, time-sensitive shipping.
Technology plays a major role here as well. Real-time inventory visibility, barcode scanning, and system integrations help ensure accuracy while keeping order velocity high. These tools power day-to-day operations, and reduce friction while at the same time creating consistency across fulfillment cycles.
Add trained warehouse teams who work within these systems daily, and the result is a level of operational flow that supports both reliability and speed. For businesses looking to scale without constantly redesigning internal processes, this kind of infrastructure provides a stable foundation.
Flexible Capacity That Grows with Demand
Growth rarely arrives in neat, predictable increments. Promotions, seasonal demand, and new product launches can shift volumes quickly, which often tests the limits of fixed warehouse footprints.
This is where 3PL outsourcing shines; because rather than locking into long-term space commitments or hiring cycles, companies gain access to flexible capacity that expands naturally with demand.
Dedicated facilities are designed to accommodate these fluctuations, which in practice means that additional storage, labor, and fulfillment resources are brought online as needed, allowing businesses to scale up during peak periods and settle into steady rhythms afterward.
This elasticity supports confident expansion into new markets or sales channels, without the operational strain that often accompanies growth.
Beyond space and staffing, flexibility extends to expertise. Established 3PL providers bring refined processes, compliance knowledge, and continuous improvement practices that quietly elevate warehouse performance over time. This blend of adaptability and experience creates an environment where scaling feels intentional rather than reactive.
Faster Reach, Stronger Customer Connections
Customers today notice how fast their orders arrive just as much as what’s inside the box. Delivery speed has become part of the brand experience, which is why warehouse location matters more than ever. When inventory is placed in a central logistics hub, businesses can cover a large portion of the U.S. with shorter transit times and more predictable delivery windows.
Orders move faster, shipping costs stay in check, and customers feel the difference. That’s the kind of fulfillment that builds trust, keeps shoppers coming back, and strengthens a brand’s reputation long after the package hits the doorstep.
With fulfillment execution in expert hands, companies can devote more attention to building relationships, refining their offerings, and responding to market trends.
As freight volumes rise and customer expectations continue to sharpen, scalable warehouse strategies are becoming essential. The good news is that third-party logistics outsourcing offers a balanced path forward — blending infrastructure, flexibility, and reach into a single, streamlined model. By partnering with fulfillment centers designed for growth, businesses position themselves to move inventory efficiently while staying ready for whatever tomorrow brings.
