I. Introduction
On October 28, 2025, the 18th Session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress adopted the newly revised Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China, which will come into effect on May 1, 2026. Against the backdrop of profound and complex changes in the international environment and severe challenges to the international economic and trade order, the adjustment of the chapter on the Carriage of Goods by Sea in the Maritime Code deserves significant attention.
The modifications to the chapter on the Carriage of Goods by Sea are extensive. This article initially classifies them into three categories based on the degree of modification: Core Revisions, Supplementary Revisions, and Adjustment Revisions. Core Revisions refer to newly added or modified rights and obligations, such as Article 52, which changes “fire exemption” to “fire on board exemption.” Supplementary Revisions refer to the incorporation of relatively mature judicial rules and standards into the new law, such as the addition of the right to suspend transportation in Article 96. Adjustment Revisions refer to modifications in the wording and word order of certain clauses, such as changing “negligence” to “fault” in specific provisions.
Given that Adjustment Revisions mostly do not affect the rules established by the original clauses, this article focuses on Core Revisions and summarizes some effective sources of the Supplementary Revisions to avoid redundancy.
II. Several Issues regarding Core Revisions
(I) Adjustment of the Scope of Application of the Chapter on Contracts of Carriage of Goods by Sea
The new law deletes the second paragraph of Article 2 of the original Maritime Code and adjusts Article 43 accordingly (unless otherwise stated, article numbers refer to the new law). This makes the concept of a contract of carriage of goods by sea cover both international and domestic maritime transport of goods, thus unifying the legal application for domestic and international maritime transport—the so-called “minimal dual-track system.”
However, there are still differences in the rights and obligations of carriers under international and domestic maritime transport contracts. These are mainly reflected in the requirements for the duration of the carrier’s obligation of seaworthiness in domestic maritime transport (covering the entire sea voyage under Article 48, Paragraph 2), the carrier’s statutory obligation of reasonable dispatch (Article 51, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2), and the fact that domestic carriers do not enjoy exemptions for nautical fault and fire on board (Article 52, Paragraph 2).
(II) Identification of Carriers and Changes in Rights and Obligations
1. Rules for the Identification of Carriers and Actual Carriers
Article 80 of the Second Draft of the Maritime Code added a presumptive rule for identifying carriers. However, considering that the corresponding situations are relatively complex and should be judged in practice based on specific circumstances, the new law did not retain this clause. Nevertheless, there are still cases in practice with different judicial reasoning.
The Maritime Code (Revised Draft for Second Review) once included a presumptive rule for identifying carriers in its Article 80. However, given the complexity of the relevant situations, it was deemed more appropriate to make judgments based on specific circumstances in practice, and the new law eventually did not retain it. Due to the lack of a unified standard, there are still different judicial approaches to the identification of carriers in judicial practice.
In the second paragraph of Article 44, the definition of “actual carrier” has been modified. Accordingly, entities such as port operators will have the status of actual carriers when specific conditions are met, and can thus enjoy the carrier’s exemptions and liability limits. Article 67 of the Minutes of the National Courts’ Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work (the “Minutes”) dated December 31, 2021, stipulated that if a port operator causes cargo damage during port operations and the shipper or consignee directly sues the port operator in tort, the port operator cannot invoke the unit liability limit. After the implementation of the new law, the original judicial rules in the Minutes will change.
2. Adjustment and Understanding of Carrier Exemptions
First, the adjustment of the fire exemption. Before the implementation of the new law, the judicial rule established by the case in Issue 10, 2007 of the Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court was that “as long as the fire accident leading to the loss or damage of goods occurs within the carrier’s period of responsibility, the carrier shall be exempt from liability regardless of whether the fire accident occurs at sea or on land.” However, under the new law, the location where the fire occurs will be explicitly limited to “on board the ship.”
Second, the understanding of the Act of God exemption. For a long time, “Act of God,” as a concept imported from English law, has lacked clear constitutive elements in judicial practice, especially regarding the boundary between Act of God and force majeure. Professors Si Yuzhuo and Hu Zhengliang have respectively analyzed the differences between Act of God and force majeure in their monographs, while the Shanghai Maritime Court tends to treat both as identical. The new law allows carriers in domestic maritime transport to invoke the Act of God exemption, which may lead to the erosion of the distinct meaning of “Act of God” and its further convergence with the meaning of force majeure.
3. Calculation of the Actual Value of Goods
Article 55 of the original Maritime Code stipulated that the actual value of goods is calculated based on the value of the goods at the time of shipment plus insurance and freight. In Case (2023) SPC Civ. Retrial No. 2157, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that since Article 55 of the Maritime Code had explicitly stipulated the amount of compensation for damaged goods, general civil law should not be applied to increase the carrier’s liability beyond that provision. Therefore, this article actually stipulates the maximum scope of the carrier’s liability.
However, Article 56 of the new law modifies the calculation method for the actual value of goods: the actual value shall be calculated based on the market price at the time of delivery at the place of delivery; if the market price at the place of delivery cannot be determined, it shall be calculated based on the value of the goods at the time of shipment plus insurance and freight.
This change represents an alignment of contracts of carriage of goods by sea with the carrier’s liability for breach of contract under general transport contracts in the Civil Code, meaning the principle of full compensation should be followed. Consequently, cargo interests may attempt to claim compensation from the carrier for additional inspection fees, disposal fees, etc., incurred due to cargo damage or loss. Meanwhile, it is worth further considering whether the carrier can defend against claims for expectation interests under the transport contract.
4. Changes in Carrier’s Lien
According to Article 87 of the original Maritime Code, it is generally understood that the carrier can only lien goods owned by the debtor. Since maritime transport serves the delivery phase of international trade, the ownership of goods often changes, and this right of the carrier often exists in name only. Article 94 of the new law changes “lien its goods” to “lien corresponding goods,” avoiding the dilemma where the lien cannot be exercised due to the transfer of cargo ownership.
In summary, under the new law, the lien on movables is not limited to movables owned by the debtor; a lien can also be created on movables owned by a third party, and it does not require the creditor’s good faith as a prerequisite. This is consistent with the intent of the first paragraph of Article 62 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Security System of the Civil Code, namely, based on the same legal relationship—for example, the transport contract evidenced by a bill of lading—the carrier can lien the goods of a third party (i.e., a bona fide holder of the bill of lading). However, it should be noted that according to the third paragraph, if the movables liened between enterprises and the debt do not arise from the same legal relationship, or are based on different transport contracts or charterparties, obstacles still remain for the carrier to lien the goods of a transferee of the bill of lading.
5. Issues of Electronic Transport Records
Section 5 of Chapter IV of the new law adds provisions for electronic transport records, clarifying their legal status. It stipulates that electronic transport records meeting statutory conditions have the same effect as transport documents; it specifies that the carrier and the shipper may agree to issue and use electronic transport records; electronic transport records should be complete, accurate, accessible for future reference, allow the issuer to be identified, and allow the holder to prove their identity; and electronic transport records and transport documents can be converted into each other.
The development of electronic transport records is an inevitable requirement of technological progress. Initiatives such as BIMCO’s “25 by 25,” the establishment of the FIT Alliance, the DCSA goal to achieve 100% electronic bills of lading by 2030, and GSBN, in which COSCO Shipping is deeply involved, are all beneficial explorations within the industry. However, electronic transport documents still have broad prospects for development in terms of the principle of equivalence, evidence identification rules, document pledges, and the establishment of a unified electronic bill of lading system.
(III) Adjustment of the Positioning of Voyage Charterparties
The new law moves the relevant provisions of voyage charterparties from Chapter IV of the original Maritime Code to Chapter VI, making voyage charterparties a subordinate concept under the chapter on Charterparties, alongside time charterparties and bareboat charterparties. This reflects the differences in cargo composition and transport technology under voyage charterparties compared to ordinary international contracts for the carriage of goods by sea and emphasizes the freedom of contract of the parties.
It is also worth noting that since voyage charterparties were not classified as ship chartering contracts under Chapter VI of the original Maritime Code, the charterer of a voyage charterparty could not enjoy the limitation of maritime liability according to Article 204 of the original Maritime Code. Article 214, Paragraph 2 of the Second Draft of the Maritime Code intended to retain this rule. However, considering that voyage charterers also bear risks of operating ships in the case of sub-chartering, the new law intends to delete this restriction, leaving space for voyage charterers to claim limitation of maritime liability.
(IV) Limitation of Actions and Application of Law
First, the issue of the limitation of actions. In Article 284 of the new law, the limitation period for claims for compensation in the carriage of goods by sea remains one year. However, Article 294 clarifies that the limitation period is interrupted when the claimant makes a demand for performance, files a lawsuit, applies for arbitration, or when the person against whom the claim is made agrees to perform the obligation. Compared with the relatively strict interruption rules in the original Maritime Code, the new law is undoubtedly beneficial to the claimant’s interests. At the same time, the new law clarifies that the starting point of the limitation period for claims by the carrier against the shipper, consignee, or holder of transport documents is when they “know or should have known that their rights have been infringed,” which is distinct from “delivery or scheduled delivery.”
Second, the issue of the application of law. Article 295 of the new law explicitly stipulates that contracts for the international maritime carriage of goods where the port of loading or the port of discharge is located within the territory of the People’s Republic of China are subject to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Maritime Code. Based on this, whether the front or back of the bill of lading stipulates the application of foreign law, or the application of foreign law is claimed by incorporating a charterparty into the bill of lading, such stipulations constitute invalid clauses.
III. Several Issues regarding Supplementary Revisions
First, some rules from the Minutes of the National Courts’ Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work (December 31, 2021) have been incorporated into the new law, mainly including:
- Article 48 of the new law extends the carrier’s obligation of seaworthiness to containers provided by the carrier (refer to Article 53 of the Minutes).
- Article 93 of the new law clarifies that the party liable for unclaimed goods at the port of destination is the shipper (refer to Article 61 of the Minutes). It should be further noted that, according to Guiding Case No. 230, the expenses and risks arising from unclaimed goods at the port of destination are borne by the contractual shipper, while the actual shipper bears no liability for compensation.
- Paragraph 2 of Article 94 of the new law stipulates that if the transport document states “freight prepaid” or a similar declaration, the carrier shall not lien the goods on the grounds of unpaid freight, unless the consignee is the shipper (refer to Article 60 of the Minutes).
Second, some rules from guiding cases, existing regulations, and international treaties have been incorporated into the new law, mainly including:
- In the carrier’s exemptions under Article 52 of the new law, judicial arrests not caused by the fault of the carrier, the actual carrier, or their employees or agents are excluded (refer to Article 139 of the Answers to Questions on the Practice of Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials (I)).
- Article 54 of the new law adds that for goods stowed on deck based on an agreement, it should be stated on the bill of lading as deck cargo; if not stated, it cannot be used as a defense against a bona fide third party (refer to Article 24, Paragraph 4 of the Rotterdam Rules).
Third, some supplementary contents are intended to ensure consistency with other clauses, mainly including:
- Article 49 of the new law extends the carrier’s obligation of care for cargo to the delivery stage, which matches the carrier’s period of responsibility for goods carried in containers.
- Article 67 of the new law adds the shipper’s obligation to deliver goods. This clause may be related to Article 97; if the shipper indeed cannot provide the goods, they may request to terminate the contract before sailing and compensate half of the agreed freight. However, Article 97 does not grant the carrier a unilateral right of termination. There is controversy as to whether the carrier can simply claim compensation with reference to Article 97 if the shipper neither performs the delivery obligation nor terminates the contract, particularly when the carrier finds it difficult to prove actual loss or loss of profits.
- In some clauses, the provisions on exemptions are extended to cases of delayed delivery by the carrier, ensuring consistency with Article 51.
IV. One Issue regarding Adjustment Revisions
Article 45 is the “soul” clause of Chapter IV. In the original text, the relationship between the sentence “The clause transferring the insurance interest in the goods to the carrier or similar clauses shall be invalid” and the preceding text was not clear enough, which might lead to the misconception that it adjusts the insurance contract. After the adjustment in the new law, the wording is closer to the original text of Article 3.8 of the Hague Rules, clarifying that an agreement in a transport contract to transfer the right to claim cargo insurance proceeds to the carrier constitutes a breach of the carrier’s minimum liability standard. Therefore, such clauses in transport contracts are invalid, and this does not involve the validity of the insurance contract itself.
V. Conclusion
The maritime transport is a primary object of regulation under the Maritime Code, and the contract of carriage of goods by sea evidenced by a bill of lading is a vital component of this part and holds an important position in China’s international trade. In summary, most of the rules in Chapter IV of the original Maritime Code have been retained and remain highly vital. The new rules added by Core Revisions and the rules clarified by Supplementary Revisions represent a re-examination and re-positioning of the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract of carriage of goods by sea. Stakeholders—including carriers, cargo owners, freight forwarders, and insurers—may take Chapter IV as a starting point for understanding the revised Maritime Code, while keeping in view the organic connections between all chapters of the Code.
For further information, please contact:
Bing YAN , Partner, Anjie Broad Law
yanbing@anjielaw.com
