2025 China Maritime Reform: How Much Control Can a Shipper Exercise over Cargo?

A common scenario arising during the performance of maritime transportation is the following: the cargo has already been loaded or received for transportation, the vessel has commenced its voyage, and the shipper requests that the goods be returned, redirected, discharged at another port, or delivered to a different consignee. From a commercial standpoint, the request may appear reasonable; from a legal standpoint, however, it may alter the contractual balance and affect proprietary rights that are already in circulation.

In international trade, the possession and transfer of bills of lading serve an essential legitimizing function. Accordingly, any instructions issued by the shipper after loading must be assessed in light of the document issued, the identity of the legitimate holder, the type of bill of lading involved, and the potential exposure of the contractual or performing carrier arising from an improper delivery of the cargo.

The 2025 Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China addresses a gap in the 1993 text by expressly recognizing that the shipper retains control rights during the carrier’s period of responsibility. The provision allows the shipper to request in writing the suspension of transportation, the return of the goods, a change in the port of discharge, or delivery to an alternative consignee, provided that the shipper compensates the contractual or performing carrier for any losses incurred.

This is a significant development because it provides the legal framework with a flexible mechanism to respond to commercial changes during the voyage. However, this flexibility is subject to safeguards: the carrier may reject the instruction if it is objectively impossible, interferes with its normal operations, results in expenses or losses without sufficient security, or if the shipper fails to surrender the issued transport documents when required.

Traditional English doctrine has treated the bill of lading as an instrument serving multiple functions, rather than merely as evidence of the transportation of goods. In this regard, Carver on Bills of Lading addresses the nature and uses of bills of lading and other related documents in the context of commercial transactions, negotiations, and disputes. This approach is particularly useful because it shows that the analysis should not focus solely on the instruction issued by the shipper, but also on the function performed by the document within the legal and commercial structure of the transaction.

From this perspective, the key issue is not merely whether the shipper issued a formally valid instruction, but whether, as against the carrier, the shipper retained the legal capacity to control the cargo. If the bill of lading has circulated as a document of title, or if there is a legitimate consignee entitled to demand delivery, the carrier cannot act as though the relationship remained confined to the original shipper on a purely bilateral basis.

For its part, Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading is particularly relevant to placing the issue within the interaction between charterparties, bills of lading, agency relationships, contractual terms, and compliance requirements. In practice, disputes rarely arise in isolation: the transport document will often coexist with a charterparty, an international sale contract, banking instructions, and, where applicable, mandatory rules of the competent forum. In this context, the shipper’s right of control cannot be understood as an autonomous or absolute right, but must instead be interpreted within the documentary and contractual framework governing the transaction.

Anglo-American legal dictionaries and maritime scholarship generally recognize three essential functions of a bill of lading: (i) serving as a receipt for the goods, (ii) evidencing the contract of carriage, and (iii) serving as a document of title or document representing the goods. This threefold function explains why presentation of the document is not a mere formality, but a practical requirement to prevent the carrier from being exposed to conflicting claims.

Accordingly, where the Chinese reform requires the shipper to surrender the issued transport documents if requested by the carrier, the provision should be understood as a mechanism for safeguarding documentary security. In this context, the issue is not simply one of verifying identity. Rather, it is necessary to determine whether the cargo remains within the shipper’s legal sphere of control or whether, as a result of the document’s circulation, an expectation of delivery has been established in favor of the consignee or the holder entitled to demand delivery.

When the shipper requests the return or redirection of the cargo while the consignee demands its delivery based on a bill of lading, the carrier should not resolve the situation automatically. Its position is particularly delicate: if it delivers the cargo to the consignee, it may face a claim from the shipper; but if it follows the shipper’s instructions, it may incur liability for wrongful delivery vis-à-vis the holder of the bill of lading entitled to demand delivery.

The most legally prudent approach is to refrain from making any hasty decision, require sufficient documentation, verify the documentary chain, request reasonable security where appropriate, and keep a written record of the assessment conducted. This approach is consistent with the carrier’s duty of commercial diligence and with the principle, recognized in English legal scholarship, that liability in maritime transportation is determined by the interplay between the contract, the transport document, custody, the operation, and the applicable law.

For the shipper, the reform will only be effective if the shipper retains documentary control or can demonstrate that its instructions do not affect third-party rights. The first practical recommendation is therefore to maintain traceability of bills of lading, endorsements, bank guarantees, and communications with the buyer or consignee.

For the consignee, the key issue is to clearly establish its legal standing to demand delivery. Its position will be stronger when it can present the original document or demonstrate that the applicable documentary framework entitles it to demand delivery from the carrier.

For the carrier, the appropriate standard is one of documented prudence. The carrier must act carefully, rather than passively. If it decides to reject the shipper’s instruction, it should explain the reasons; if it decides to comply with it, it should ensure that doing so does not infringe the rights of an entitled third party and, where necessary, obtain adequate security.

The 2025 reform of China’s Maritime Code represents a significant technical development because it expressly recognizes a commercial reality: during transit, a shipper may need to modify instructions concerning the cargo. However, an analysis informed by English legal scholarship helps avoid an overly broad interpretation of the right of control. In maritime transportation, control does not rest solely on the shipper’s wishes; rather, it is structured around the transport document, custody of the cargo, and entitlement to receive the goods.

The most balanced approach is to understand the right of control as a functional right rather than an absolute prerogative. Its exercise should be subject to clear instructions, documentary verification, reasonable indemnification mechanisms for the carrier, and respect for the rights of the consignee or the holder of the bill of lading entitled to demand delivery. Under this approach, the new regime may provide greater commercial flexibility without compromising the legal certainty required for the circulation of documents in international maritime transportation.