Incorrect acceptance of hazardous cargo can strand containers, trigger IMDG Code segregation failures, increase fire risk, and expose shippers, forwarders, carriers, terminals, and cargo owners to costs, claims, and General Average. Allianz recorded 218 fire and explosion incidents in 2025, with misdeclared cargo tied to around a quarter of cargo-related incidents..
When I first wrote about this topic over a decade ago, the concern was largely about cargo delays, additional costs, and commercial disputes arising from the incorrect acceptance of hazardous cargo..
It was prompted by a real shipment in which hazardous cargo was accepted and loaded, only for the carrier to discover during transhipment that part of the cargo could not legally be discharged at the destination.. The shipment became stranded, deliveries were delayed, and avoidable costs and commercial disputes followed..
That concern has not disappeared. It has grown into something far more serious..
Container ship fires continue to occur with alarming frequency. Allianz Commercial’s 2026 Safety and Shipping Review recorded 218 fire and explosion incidents during 2025, the second-highest annual total in the past decade.. The report also points to misdeclared cargo as a contributing factor in around a quarter of cargo-related incidents..
Consequences of incorrectly accepting hazardous cargo extend well beyond a delayed container..
The first consequence is operational disruption.. Cargo may be refused at a transhipment port, rejected at the destination, or require discharge, segregation, repacking, or even destruction.. Every decision consumes time, equipment, terminal space, and manpower, while the shipment itself remains stuck..
The commercial consequences follow quickly.. Storage charges, additional freight, container detention, rehandling costs, inspection fees, and disposal expenses can escalate rapidly.. Depending on the contractual arrangements, these costs may ultimately fall on the buyer or seller..
The risks become significantly greater if the cargo has been incorrectly declared or incorrectly packed but accepted for shipment.. A survey in 2020 showed that “33% of DG misdeclarations are wilful, to avoid cost or bypass regulations“.. TT Club statistics indicate that as much as 66% of incidents related to cargo damage in the intermodal supply chain can be attributed in part to poor packing practices..
Dangerous goods are stowed according to their UN number, hazard class, packing group, and segregation requirements under the IMDG Code.. Incorrect or incomplete information can result in cargo being stowed next to incompatible substances or in locations that make emergency response far more difficult.. If an incident occurs, the crew may initially be responding to the wrong hazard..
This is one of the reasons container ship fires continue to concern the industry.. Allianz reports that fire remains one of the leading causes of major losses at sea, while the growing movement of lithium batteries, chemicals, and other dangerous goods has increased the importance of accurate cargo declarations..
The consequences rarely stop with the container carrying the dangerous goods..
A fire involving one container can damage hundreds of others.. Cargo owners with no connection to the original shipment may suffer cargo losses, delivery delays, and business interruption.. Vessel owners face expensive salvage operations, deviation costs, and repairs.. General Average may be declared, requiring cargo interests across the vessel to contribute towards the costs of saving the maritime adventure.. The MSC Flaminia dangerous goods incident is a grim reminder of this..
Ports and terminals also carry the consequences.. Emergency response procedures, berth closures, cargo evacuation, and environmental protection measures can disrupt operations well beyond the vessel involved..
Liability can become equally complex.. Investigations frequently examine whether the shipper correctly declared the cargo, whether the freight forwarder transmitted accurate information, whether the packing complied with the IMDG Code, and whether the carrier exercised proper due diligence before accepting the shipment.. More than one party can ultimately share responsibility..
The industry is responding to these risks
The World Shipping Council and the National Cargo Bureau have introduced an industry-wide Cargo Safety Program that uses artificial intelligence to analyse cargo booking information and identify potentially misdeclared or incorrectly described shipments before loading.. The system is expected to screen millions of container bookings globally, giving carriers another opportunity to identify dangerous cargo before it reaches the vessel..
Technology will certainly improve cargo screening, but it cannot replace accurate declarations, sound acceptance procedures, or ethical and responsible behaviour..
Every hazardous cargo acceptance is also a safety decision.. Getting that decision wrong can affect the cargo, the vessel, the crew, other cargo owners, ports, insurers, and everyone else connected to the voyage..
My Take
Hazardous cargo acceptance is a live safety decision. The IMDG Code gives the framework, but the booking, declaration, packing, and port acceptance checks decide how that framework works in practice.. The MSC Flaminia showed how one dangerous goods incident can pull shippers, carriers, cargo interests, insurers, salvors, terminals, and courts into years of cost and argument.. AI screening by the World Shipping Council and National Cargo Bureau adds a useful filter before loading, but the first control sits with the party that knows the cargo, packs it, and declares it..
Article FAQ
What happens when hazardous cargo is incorrectly accepted..??
Why are misdeclared dangerous goods so serious..??
How is the industry checking dangerous cargo before loading..??
Critical note: who is exposed when one DG container catches fire..??
Unfortunately the best way is to find new buyer in order to avoid the increasing storage costs at t/s port. I dont think that Line will solve this problem soon. My understanding is the booking agent of the Line who acting as per DG desk instructions didnt check with discharging port the acceptance. In this case there is no sence to wait for prompt settlement. The matter will be delayed for years. First of all do claim the Line and at the same time try to find new buyer.
This is the consequence of unprofessional behaviour, and the one that caused the wrong must repair it. In my opinion for this case, the line must support the freight for 1 st and 2 nd leg with port dues. The shipper can subsequently hold the line as professionally responsible as must employ a specialist for conducting DG