Under DDP terms in cross-border logistics, freight forwarders frequently encounter disputes over storage charges arising from customs clearance delays. Ambiguous liability allocation and insufficient risk mitigation have become persistent industry pain points. Drawing on a representative case at Busan Airport, South Korea, this article reviews the core issues behind storage fee disputes, analyzes common risk control blind spots in DDP operations, clarifies the key evidence and liability logic applied in dispute resolution, and offers practical preventive recommendations to help freight forwarders avoid similar risks and standardize operational practices.
I. Case Review: Where Does the Storage Fee Dispute Arise Under DDP?
Case Background
Agent B, designated by the shipper, entrusted Freight Forwarder A to provide end-to-end DDP import services via Busan Airport, South Korea. The cargo arrived at Busan Airport on March 10, 2025. Due to the consignee’s failure to timely supplement the Certificate of Origin and commercial invoice, the customs documentation was incomplete, resulting in cargo being held at the airport. Customs clearance was completed on March 30, with delivery on March 31, generating 20 days of airport storage charges. Forwarder A billed Agent B according to the quotation, which was rejected by B. A subsequently filed a complaint with the platform.
Points of Dispute and Positions of Both Parties
There were two core issues in dispute:
First, who should bear the storage charges caused by the customs clearance delay;
Second, whether the quotation term “to be settled as incurred” could serve as a valid charging basis.
Agent A argued that the quotation clearly stated that storage charges would be “settled as incurred.” The operator had verbally reminded that Busan Airport offered no free storage period and that charges would accrue after 48 hours. In addition, Agent B had sent a confirmation email agreeing to bear additional costs arising from documentation delays. The delay was caused by the consignee’s failure to provide documents on time and was unrelated to A’s operations. Official airport invoices were also provided by A.
Agent B, however, contended that the quotation did not specify concrete rates or the charging start time, constituting “hidden charges.” As a professional DDP agent, A should have provided a complete document list prior to booking and issued repeated reminders. B further argued that Agent A should have been fully aware of South Korean customs requirements and that losses caused by insufficient professional diligence should not be borne by B.
II. Risk Analysis: Common Risk Control Blind Spots in DDP Operations
1. Core Risk: DDP Is Often Misinterpreted as “All-Inclusive.”
Clients frequently assume that all costs under DDP are covered by the freight forwarder, overlooking the principle of unforeseeable costs.
2. Inadequate Cost Expectation Management.
DDP quotations are intended to cover foreseeable costs, but do not include delay-related expenses caused by the client, such as port or airport storage charges.
3. Blurred Boundaries of Documentation Responsibility.
The ultimate responsibility for customs documentation lies with the shipper or principal. Where this is not clearly communicated, risk is often shifted back to the freight forwarder.
III. How Are Disputes Resolved? The Key Lies in the Evidence Chain and Allocation of Process Responsibility
In this dispute, the operating party handled three critical points correctly:
1. The quotation clearly stated “storage charges settled as incurred” and highlighted the absence of a free storage period
Although no specific amount was stated due to daily rate fluctuations at the airport, the combination of “settled as incurred” and “no free storage period” constituted a valid charging basis during the complaint review.
Reminder: Some forwarders label quotations as “ALL IN” without specifying exceptions—this represents the greatest risk exposure.
2. Written confirmation that storage costs caused by missing documents would be borne by the principal
A crucial email from the principal stated: “Documents may be delayed; if storage charges arise, our company will bear them.”
Such screenshots, email replies, and confirmations represent the most direct evidence for liability allocation.
3. Provision of official airport storage invoices to ensure charges were authentic and verifiable
Official documentation is far more persuasive than lengthy explanations. In particular, official invoices issued by airports or terminals are the strongest proof for verifying cost legitimacy.
Platform Conclusion: As the delay resulted from missing documentation, the storage charges constituted “costs incurred due to the principal’s failure to timely submit required documents” and should therefore be borne by Party B.
IV. Risk Mitigation Recommendations for DDP Operations: Prevention Is Better Than Post-Dispute Resolution
How can freight forwarders mitigate risks in advance?
1. Quotations must include clear exception clauses
“Additional costs arising from delays caused by the client shall be borne by the principal. DDP does not include unforeseeable costs.”
2. Clearly define the latest deadline for document submission, preferably in quantifiable terms
Recommended wording: “Customs clearance documents must be submitted no later than 72 hours prior to departure / ETA. Any storage charges incurred shall be borne by the principal.”
Attachments may be added: Customs clearance document checklist (particularly critical for South Korea, Japan, and Germany).
3. All reminders must be supported by verifiable records
Notifications should be issued in writing via email or traceable online communication tools, with emphasis on proper retention of documentary evidence.
For freight forwarders engaged in DDP operations, it is essential to establish a risk mitigation framework where prevention outweighs remediation. This requires strengthening professional competence, clearly defining responsibility boundaries, improving contract and process management, conducting due diligence and proactive disclosures in advance, and standardizing evidence retention. Only by “clearly pricing foreseeable costs and explicitly defining unforeseeable risks” can forwarders build client trust and enhance competitiveness. In cross-border logistics, reputation and risk control remain the foundation of long-term success.
