The deliberations formally acknowledged that the challenges confronting exporters are systemic, widespread, and not isolated incidents. The disruptions have cut across sectors, ports, and shipment categories, necessitating urgent policy-level intervention. Exporters from diverse industries, including agricultural commodities, food products, fast-moving consumer goods, and handicrafts, reported acute operational and financial distress caused by unilateral actions of global shipping lines.
Containers remain stranded at ports, inland container depots, and transshipment hubs due to abrupt service suspensions, rerouting, and cargo diversions. Despite halted cargo movement, exporters continue to incur heavy detention, demurrage, and multiple ancillary charges. Ms. Priyanka Mittal, Chairperson of the Basmati Rice Farmers and Exporters Development Forum, stated that while DG Shipping’s initiative to formally document grievances is commendable, the situation on the ground remains extremely challenging.
Exporters highlighted the imposition of arbitrary, non-transparent, and disproportionate charges, including war risk surcharges, detention, demurrage, congestion levies, and transshipment costs. War risk surcharges alone have ranged between USD 800 and USD 6,000 per container, often introduced without prior notice or revised retrospectively. In several instances, cumulative charges have escalated to 60 to 70 percent of cargo value, rendering exports commercially unviable.
Operational disruptions have further intensified the crisis. Shipping lines have unilaterally diverted cargo to alternative ports such as Jebel Ali, Sohar, and Salalah, held containers at transshipment hubs without clarity on onward movement, and returned containers to origin ports in so-called “back-to-town” scenarios. These decisions have been taken without consultation, while the entire financial burden continues to fall on exporters.
Ms. Mittal emphasized that exporters are being forced to absorb open-ended financial liabilities for circumstances beyond their control, calling the situation unsustainable. A major concern raised during the meeting was the lack of transparency and absence of standardized norms governing shipping line charges. Exporters reported that fees are frequently imposed without justification or cost breakdown and are often communicated after cargo movement has begun, creating significant uncertainty and contractual risk.
The discussions also exposed structural gaps in India’s maritime ecosystem, including the absence of a clear regulatory framework governing shipping line practices, lack of standardization in detention and demurrage policies, and the absence of defined protocols for handling force majeure situations and cargo diversions. Ms. Mittal noted that such practices raise serious concerns regarding fairness, reasonableness, and carrier obligations under the Merchant Shipping Act.
Exporters, particularly micro, small, and medium enterprises, pointed to a stark imbalance in bargaining power between global shipping lines and individual exporters. This imbalance has left them with limited recourse, exposing them to disproportionate financial risks. The continuous accumulation of charges has created what exporters described as a “running meter,” severely straining working capital and, in some cases, forcing businesses to consider abandoning cargo altogether.
Beyond financial losses, the crisis is jeopardizing export commitments, straining long-standing buyer relationships, and undermining India’s credibility as a reliable global supplier. DG Shipping informed participants that complaints have been formally registered, assigned unique tracking mechanisms, and will be consolidated for submission to the Inter-Ministerial Group, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, and other relevant authorities for policy-level consideration. Industry bodies, including the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, have also submitted consolidated representations reflecting the widespread nature of the issue.
While acknowledging DG Shipping’s facilitative role, the industry has called for time-bound and decisive intervention. Exporters have urged authorities to ensure that charges are strictly linked to actual services rendered, direct shipping lines to release and return containers without linking them to disputed charges, establish clear regulatory guidelines for handling cargo during force majeure and geopolitical disruptions, and introduce standardized norms with transparency requirements for shipping charges.
Ms. Mittal stressed that immediate relief is critical to prevent further financial damage, while also highlighting the opportunity to address long-standing structural gaps and build a more transparent, balanced, and resilient maritime trade framework. The industry underscored the need for a collaborative, rules-based approach involving regulators, shipping lines, and exporters to ensure continuity of trade while upholding fairness and accountability.
Exporters remain cautiously optimistic that ongoing engagement will result in timely and enforceable solutions to safeguard India’s agricultural, consumer goods, and micro, small, and medium enterprise export sectors, which are vital to farmer incomes, employment, and the broader economy. Ms. Mittal concluded that failure to address these practices risks setting a damaging precedent that could erode confidence in India’s maritime trade framework and distort fair market conduct.
About The Author
Comment List