Case Overview
In early 2025, platform member Company A was commissioned by Company B to arrange the transport of a 40HQ container from Turkey to Hamburg, Germany. The carrier was ZIM, with a 5-day free container use period. The cargo had low value, and the trade term was EXW (Ex Works).
The shipment departed on January 15, 2025, and arrived at the destination port on February 8. Due to a payment dispute between Company B and its client, on March 15, Company B instructed Company A not to release the cargo before March 26, resulting in substantial demurrage and storage fees. The container was eventually returned on April 2.
Company A demanded USD 12,365 from Company B to cover the destination port charges caused by the instruction. Company B denied responsibility, prompting Company A to initiate a claim via the platform. The platform intervened in the matter.
Evidence Chain
- Sailing record: Departed on January 15, arrived on February 8
- ZIM invoice: Demurrage and Detention fee escalated in stages to $2,400 and $5,775 respectively As of March 7
- Written instruction from Company B on March 15: Due to non-receipt of payment from the customer, the cargo is instructed not be released before March 26.
- Picked up on April 2.Demurrage fee:$ 3,520 / Detention fee: $ 8,845.
Platform Conclusion
Based on the clear "don’t release cargo" instruction issued by Company B , and in light of the EXW term under which the principal is responsible for release instructions at the destination port, the platform determined that the Demurrage and Detention fee incurred by Company A were unrelated to their operational conduct. Responsibility lies with Company B for issuing the delay instruction.
Platform Ruling: Company B is required to pay Company A USD 12,365 for the destination port fees.
Failure to fulfill the payment within the specified period will result in suspension from cooperating with other members or being blacklisted in the JCtrans dishonesty list, with corresponding restrictions on the account.
Under the communication and urge from the platform’s Risk Control Team, Company B paid the destination port charges to Company A in two installments. The case was closed upon full payment.
Operational Reminder
This case illustrates the platform’s core arbitration principle: written instructions are the primary basis for determining liability, with contract terms taking precedence and responsibilities clearly defined.
Under EXW terms, the principal is responsible for cargo release at the destination port. If the principal intervenes and instructs a hold on release, they must bear the resulting delays and costs. Members are reminded that all instructions related to cargo release should undergo a risk assessment beforehand. Unreasonable restrictions can lead to high destination fees. For low-value cargo especially, this increases the risk of cargo abandonment.
Members are advised to clearly define role and responsibility boundaries before operations begin, especially under FOB/EXW trade terms. Destination fees should be pre-negotiated with liability clearly assigned before the release order is issued.
Maintaining written communication records is crucial for future claims and liability determination. If an instruction from the principal could result in increased charges at the destination, written confirmation of cost assumption must be secured.
Once a ruling takes effect, the liable party must fulfill the payment obligation within the deadline to avoid being Suspend、blacklist, losing Cooperation Risk Protection, and negatively impacting current or upcoming client relationships.
Relevant Rule Reminder
JCtrans Member Agreement Clause 4.6: Members must bear the consequences of their own instructions.
Clause 4.7: In the absence of breach by the other party, members must not unreasonably refuse payment of justified destination charges.
For further assistance or Risk Mitigation guidance, please contact the Platform Risk Control Department. We are committed to safeguarding our members and reducing international logistics transaction risks.
