Maritime trade to China faces a unique legal framework regarding cargo claims, defined primarily by the China Maritime Code (CMC), in force since 1993. This regulation, largely inspired by the Hague-Visby Rules, governs the responsibilities of shipping companies and cargo interests, including vessel seaworthiness, burden of proof, time limits for filing claims (one year), and limits of liability.

Although it maintains strong alignment with international standards, the CMC introduces its own legal practices, which sometimes extend obligations beyond those provided for in international regulations.

Claims for missing cargo

In China, claims for shortages usually arise from transshipment operations to smaller vessels (lightering), common in ports with draft limitations. These maneuvers generate quantity discrepancies due to factors such as waves, water density, ballast conditions, or the accuracy of draft surveys.

In 2022, the Supreme People's Court established that minor losses resulting from evaporation, spills, or measurement errors can exempt the shipping company from liability, provided due diligence is demonstrated. If the loss exceeds what is accepted by commercial usage and there is no distinction between natural shrinkage and actual loss, the courts tend to rule in favor of the claimant.

Recent case law, such as the “SDTR Dora” case (2023), reinforces the importance of independent draft surveys as key evidence against on-shore scale measurements.

Physical and quality damage

In claims for physical damage, such as heat damage to agricultural cargo, the burden of proof falls on the shipping company, which must demonstrate adequate care. Chinese courts pay particular attention to ventilation records, the absence or deficiency of which is often interpreted as a lack of due diligence.

Regarding quality claims, judges limit liability to the apparent condition of the goods at the time of shipment. Cases such as the MV Megalohari and the Bulk Aquila confirmed that the issuance of clean bills of lading does not imply liability for internal defects, such as contamination or concealed damage.

Procedural aspects

The CMC also establishes distinctions between contractual and actual carriers, which in some cases has led to time charterers being held liable, although recent judicial trends have tended to restrict this scope.

Another key element is the statute of limitations: one year from delivery of the cargo, with no possibility of extension by agreement. Furthermore, the omission of the charter party date from the bill of lading may invalidate the inclusion of arbitration clauses or applicable law, leaving the dispute under Chinese jurisdiction.

Practical recommendations

Experts suggest a series of preventive measures to reduce risks in cargo claims in China:

• Appoint an independent expert to carry out draft surveys in Chinese ports.
• Document with photos or videos draft marks and unloading processes.
• Invite counterparts (charterers or receivers) to appoint their own experts and sign joint reports.
• Maintain comprehensive ventilation records on long journeys, especially with agricultural products.
• Accurately include the date of the charter party in bills of lading, to reinforce arbitration clauses or applicable law.

In conclusion, although the Chinese legal framework reflects international standards, the judicial interpretation imposes a stricter burden of proof on shipping companies. Practice shows that careful documentation and the involvement of independent experts are essential tools for successfully addressing potential claims in Chinese maritime courts.