Policy & Compliance
Continued from Page 15
Above: Shanghai Yangshan deepwater port “ Views of the practical impacts of these changes are varied; some basically feel that it reflects the reality of what occurs
the scope of the new code. • Where a loading or discharge port is in China, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Chapter IV applies mandatorily, potentially limiting the practical effect of foreign jurisdiction clauses. • Mandatory Application of Chinese Law (Article 295) – The biggest issue for UK operators. This is the most significant change for UK-based freight forwarders and NVOCCs. Article 295(2) stipulates that contracts for the international carriage of goods by sea, where the port of loading or the port of discharge is located within the territory of the People’s Republic of China, shall be governed by Chapter IV of the Revised Maritime Code. This means that choice-of-law clauses in international maritime cargo transport contracts or bills of lading that designate a foreign law (such as English law) as the governing law are now subject to the mandatory application of Chapter IV, which establishes the precedence of Chinese Law. In this article BIFA has examined most of the main changes that the legal and insurance professions have currently identified stemming from the changes contained within the Maritime Code. Views of the practical impacts of these changes are varied; some basically feel that it reflects the reality of what occurs now and growing Chinese power in maritime trades. There are some areas where further guidance is being sought and the Association will advise Members of these where appropriate. In certain ways, it might assist the freight forwarder when preparing customs entries because the code does include requirements regarding accurate cargo values being declared. Our final suggestion is that Members should speak to their insurance brokers to discuss whether any adjustments to their freight forwarder liability policy are necessary.
• Who has authority to give the instruction? • Is the request operationally executable? • What additional costs or security are required, and from whom? • Is presentation of a transport document or proof of control needed? Time bars: still one year, but easier to interrupt The headline one-year limitation period for cargo claims remains. However, the revised code introduces a more balanced structure and a notable change on interruption. Limitation can now be interrupted, not only by commencing proceedings but also by submitting a request for performance, a formal demand that can be oral or written and does not require acceptance by the counterparty. The code also provides a clearer recourse window: at least 90 days from settlement of the original claim. Technical changes with practical impact The amended Maritime Code introduces several other changes, which Members should take note of: • For shipowners/operators, the fire defence is narrowed to ‘fire on board’. • Cargo value is assessed primarily by market value at the place and time of delivery, where ascertainable. • Lien wording is refined, improving enforceability but restricting use where freight is stated as pre-paid. • The definition of ‘actual carrier’ is broadened, potentially bringing ports or subcontractors within the framework. From the freight forwarders’ viewpoint, the crucial point to remember is that should they issue a house bill of lading they become a contractual carrier and regarded as being within
now and growing Chinese power in maritime trades
16 | June 2026
www.bifa.org
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker