The Revised Chinese Maritime Code – FAQs
The Chinese Maritime Code’s major overhaul in 30 years came into force on 1 May 2026. This FAQ addresses the several amendments and the implications for Members’ operation and liability exposure.
Articles
Vincent Yeung
Published: 8月 14, 2026
Part 1: Cargo
What is an “actual carrier”?
The amended Article 44 clarifies that an “actual carrier” includes any party that physically handles all or part of the cargo transportation on behalf of the carrier. This can include tasks such as receiving, loading, moving, stowing, carrying, safeguarding, unloading, and delivering goods. Due to the broad nature of the definition, companies such as port operators may, under certain conditions, be treated as “actual carriers”, in which case they may benefit from the same legal protections as the carrier, including exemptions from liability and limits on damages.
When will the duty of seaworthiness for domestic carriages apply?
Article 48 clarifies that the duty of seaworthiness for carriers engaged in domestic carriage of goods by sea is explicitly stated to apply not only before and at the beginning of the voyage but also "during the voyage", and Article 49 explicitly imposes on the carrier the obligation to properly and carefully "receive" and "deliver" the goods.
What are the key differences in the basis of liability between international and domestic carriage under the New Code?
The New Code maintains a "dual-track" system for liability.
For international carriages, the carrier continues to enjoy the "Nautical Fault Defence" (which covers mistakes in operating or managing the vessel) and the "Fire Defence" (which exempts carriers’ liability for fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier). However, for domestic carriages, these exemptions of liability are not available.
For domestic carriages, it has been expressly provided in Article 51 of the New Code that failure to deliver the cargo within a reasonable period of time may constitute “delayed delivery”.
Any new requirements concerning deck cargo?
The amended Article 54 concerns the carriage of cargoes on deck. It stipulates that if goods are carried on deck pursuant to an agreement between the shipper and the carrier, this must be stated on the bill of lading.
On the other hand, carrying containers on the deck of a purpose-built container vessel is normally considered a long-standing, universally accepted, and necessary operational practice. This is normally referred to as “custom of the trade". Therefore, where a liner company's right to carry containers on deck of container vessels is based on this “custom of the trade”, it is generally not necessary to reach a specific "agreement" with the shipper for each shipment.
However, if the specific nature of the containerised cargo makes it unsuitable for on-deck stowage, then stowing it on deck would not conform with the proper shipping practice of safely caring for that cargo. In such cases, if the carrier still wishes to stow it on deck, the shipper's explicit agreement needs to be obtained and a remark on the bill of lading made.
How will damages for cargo claims be assessed?
The revised Article 56 deals with the calculation of damages relating to cargo claims. It establishes that when calculating the “actual value of goods”, this value should primarily be based on the market price at the place and time of delivery. If that market price cannot be established, the CIF price (cost, insurance, and freight) at the time of shipment will serve as the standard.
Any adjustments in rights and obligations of shippers?
Article 67 contains an adjustment of the Shipper's Rights and Obligations, providing that the shipper must deliver the goods to the carrier and must ensure that the goods are suitable for the agreed carriage.
Who should take delivery of the goods under different types of transport documents?
The updated Article 87 specifies exactly who should take delivery under different types of transport documents, such as straight bills of lading, order bills of lading, bearer bills of lading, and negotiable electronic transport records.
Who should bear the costs and risks when goods are not collected at the discharge port?
Article 93 shifts responsibility for costs and risks when goods are not collected at the port of discharge from the consignee to the shipper, with the carrier required to notify the shipper promptly. If the consignee has already exercised rights under the contract of carriage, however, those costs and risks fall on the consignee instead.
Can the port of discharge or the identity of consignee be changed even after the goods are in the carrier’s custody?
Article 96 stipulates that during the period when the carrier is responsible for the goods, the shipper may submit a written request to change either the port of discharge or the consignee. The shipper must, however, compensate the carrier for any losses resulting from such changes. The law also outlines specific circumstances in which the carrier may refuse the request.
When will Chinese law apply to cargo claims?
Article 295 provides that Chapter 4 of PRC Maritime Code will apply to international contracts of carriage by sea when the port of loading and/or the port of discharge are located in China.
In fact, prior to the revision of the Maritime Code, although there were no express provisions mandating the application of Chinese law to disputes where either the port of loading or discharge was in China, in practice, almost all disputes resolved in Chinese courts were effectively settled under Chinese law. Therefore, this amendment may be better seen as a codification of a long-standing judicial practice.
It is now clear that Chinese law will apply even where it is stipulated in the contract of carriage that a foreign law (such as English law) applies, or even where the consignee is located outside China and expects that the local law at the port of discharge will apply.
Part 2: Pollution
Amongst the major changes to the Code is the addition of a dedicated chapter on oil pollution liability, namely Chapter XII: Liability for Oil Pollution Damage from Ships (Articles 225 – 239). The new chapter significantly strengthens pollution provisions by integrating international conventions into domestic law, enhancing the "polluter pays" principle.
The new provisions and amendments to the Code reflect a strengthening of the protection of the marine environment. Shipowners need to ensure the comprehensive and effective implementation of ship safety and pollution prevention management systems, must establish specialised training, standardise the retention of environmental compliance records and reduce the risk of pollution liability arising from improper operations.
Is pollution liability a strict liability?
Unless an exemption provided by Section 2 of Article 226 applies (see Q.13, below), strict liability applies to shipowners, and claimants are relieved of the burden of proving the shipowner's fault.
Further, if the pollution damage results from an incident involving two or more vessels, and each vessel has emitted pollutants and the pollution damage cannot be attributed to a particular vessel, then the shipowners of both vessels shall bear joint and several liability for the entire pollution damage.
Compulsory insurance for pollution liability? Any direct right to claim against the insurers?
Article 229 stipulates that a compulsory insurance system is required for oil pollution damage and explicitly grants claimants the direct right to claim compensation from the liability insurer or financial guarantor of the shipowner.
According to the New Code, shipowners of vessels carrying persistent oil in bulk (oil tankers) and shipowners of any vessel with a gross tonnage (GT) exceeding a certain threshold (typically 1,000 GT for bunker oil pollution) are required to maintain valid insurance or other financial security to cover their potential liability for oil pollution damage. Vessels must carry on board a valid "Certificate of Insurance or Other Financial Security in Respect of Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage”. The Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) will check these certificates during routine PSC inspections.
The liability insurer or financial guarantor shall be liable for compensation within the statutory limitation of liability. Even if the shipowner loses the right to limit liability for maritime claims, this shall not affect the right of the liability insurer or financial guarantor to invoke the statutory limitation of liability as a defence.
While China is already a party to international conventions (such as the 1992 CLC and the 2001 Bunker Convention), Article 229 of the New Code integrates and codifies these requirements into domestic law. That said, the New Code does not impose additional requirements beyond international standards, and for international vessels, valid certificates issued under the 1992 CLC or the 2001 Bunker Convention remain sufficient and recognized in China.
What kind of losses can be claimed for pollution liability?
Under Article 225, the scope of compensation includes four categories: property loss, costs of preventive measures, loss of income, and expenses for ecological environment restoration.
The shipowner shall be liable for ship-induced oil pollution damage. However, under Article 226, the shipowner will not be liable for compensation if it can prove that the oil pollution damage is entirely caused by any of the following circumstances and such damage is unavoidable even after reasonable and timely measures have been taken:
- War, armed conflict, terrorist activities, or unavoidable natural disasters;
- A third party has done it intentionally;
- Negligence or other wrongful acts committed by the department responsible for the administration of the beacons or other navigation aids in the performance of its duties.
How will the liability be apportioned if the pollution is partly caused by another party?
Section 1 and 3 of Article 226 provide that if the shipowner proves that the oil pollution damage is caused in whole or in part by the fault of another party, the shipowner may be wholly or partly exempted from the liability for compensation to that party. However, the New Code clarifies that even if a collision is caused by a third party, the oil-spilling ship is the primary liable party.
How will the liability for bunker oil pollution damage be limited?
In terms of limiting liability for bunker oil pollution damage, the general rules on the limitation of liability for maritime claims as set out in Article 217 are applicable.
Can pollution liability be allowed under general average?
Losses or expenses arising from pollutant leakage by the ship, cargo, or other property during the same maritime voyage shall not be allowed in general average under Article 202. Pollution-related losses and expenses must be borne by the responsible party and cannot be treated as an extraordinary sacrifice under a common danger to be shared among the beneficiaries.
Do the amendments for pollution constitute a material change or just a codification of existing practice?
For most international shipowners, the New Code is a codification of existing practices under international conventions. However, it provides greater legal certainty by integrating these rules into domestic law.
Part 3: Crew
Are crew employment contracts subject to MLC 2006?
It is now expressly required under Article 36 that crew employment contracts should satisfy all relevant laws, regulations, and “International Convention to which PRC is a party”, which shall include Maritime Labor Convention 2006 (MLC 2006).
Any express obligation of a ship’s master?
The obligation of a master to prevent environmental pollution has been highlighted in Article 37. It is also worth noting that Article 40 now expressly requires the master to preserve the log book, engine log, oil record book, radio log, charts used during the voyage, and documents, as well as valuables, mail and cash, and more importantly, the master shall direct seafarers to close equipment such as oil tank valves to prevent or reduce pollution before leaving the vessel in the event of a casualty.
This imposes additional obligations on the master when dealing with casualties and may lead to an additional chain of enquiry when ascertaining a ship’s liability in pollution incidents.
Part 4: Passenger Liabilities
Any adjustment in limitation of passenger liabilities?
The limitation for passenger liabilities has been drastically increased as follows:
| Type of loss | Original provisions (1993 version) (Art. 117) | New provisions (2026 version) (Art. 115) |
|---|---|---|
| Death or injury to passengers | 46,666 SDR | 175,000 SDR |
| Loss / damage to passenger’s cabin luggage | 833 SDR | 1,800 SDR |
| Loss / damage to passenger’s vehicles and the luggage inside the vehicles | 3,333 SDR | 10,000 SDR |
| Loss / damage to other luggage | 1,200 SDR | 2,700 SDR |
What are the requirements for liability insurance, and any direct action by passengers against liability insurers?
There is a new provision under Article 125 that requires the carrier or the actual carrier to obtain liability insurance (or corresponding financial guarantee) to cover any liability for death or injury of passengers.
The new Article 126 provides for direct action against the liability insurer (or the provider of the financial guarantee) for any claim for death or injury of passengers.
However, even if the carrier or actual carrier has lost their right to cap their liability for claims due to reasons such as willful or reckless disregard of danger causing the incident, the liability insurer or the provider of the financial guarantee can still rely on the cap of liability. The liability insurer or the provider of the financial guarantee can also use “willful conduct of the carrier or actual carrier” to defend the claim.
Part 5: Other Limitation of Liabilities and Time Bars
Any change in liability limitation amounts?
The limitation amounts have been significantly increased as follows:
| Original provisions (1993 version) (Art. 210 and 211) | New provisions (2026 version) (Art. 219 and 220) | |
|---|---|---|
| Claims for compensation for personal injury or death: | ||
| Ship with 300 to 500 GT | 333,000 SDR | 500,000 SDR |
| Ship with more than 500 GT | First 500 GT, 330,000 SDR The excess from 501 GT to 3,000 GT, increase by 500 SDR per GT The excess from 3,001 GT to 30,000 GT, increase by 333 SDR per GT The excess from 30,001 GT to 70,000 GT, increase by 250 SDR per GT The excess from 70,001 GT, increase by 167 SDR per GT | First 500 GT, 500,000 SDR The excess from 501 GT to 2,000 GT, increase by 1,000 SDR per GT The excess from 2,001 GT to 30,000 GT, increase by 800 SDR per GT The excess from 30,001 GT to 70,000 GT, increase by 600 SDR per GT The excess from 70,001 GT, increase by 400 SDR per GT |
| Claims for compensation for non-personal injury or death: | ||
| Ship with 300 to 500 GT | 167,000 SDR | 250,000 SDR |
| Ship with more than 500 GT | First 500 GT, 167,000 SDR The excess from 501 GT to 30,000 GT, increase by 167 SDR per GT The excess from 30,001 GT to 70,000 GT, increase by 125 SDR per GT The excess from 70,001 GT, increase by 83 SDR per GT | First 500 GT, 250,000 SDR The excess from 501 GT to 2,000 GT, increase by 500 SDR per GT The excess from 2,001 GT to 30,000 GT, increase by 400 SDR per GT The excess from 30,001 GT to 70,000 GT, increase by 300 SDR per GT The excess from 70,001 GT, increase by 200 SDR per GT |
| Claims for personal injury or death of passengers carried by sea: | ||
| 46,666 SDR × number of passengers the ship is authorized to carry | 175,000 SDR × number of passengers the ship is authorized to carry | |
Any instances where the above limitations will not apply / other limitations will apply?
Article 217 provides that the limitations of liabilities above do not apply to liabilities for pollution caused by ships carrying oil in bulk, which is governed by Section 2 of Chapter XII. The above limitations of liability do not apply to liabilities for wreck removal and rendering harmless of the wreck.
Part 6: Time Bars
Any clarification on the applicable time bars?
- Cargo claims:
The time limit for claims regarding carriage of goods by sea is one year.
For claims raised against carrier and actual carrier, the time limit shall run from the date of delivery of the goods or the date the goods ought to have been delivered. However, for claims raised against the cargo interests by the carrier, the time limit would run from the date the carrier know or should have known their rights have been infringed.
For recourse action against third parties, the limitation period remains to be 90 days. Under the original provisions, such 90 days shall run from the day the underlying claim is resolved or the copy of Statement of Claim is served on the person intending to bring such recourse action. Under the New Code, such 90 days shall only run from the day the underlying claim is resolved.
- “Damage without collision” claims:
Article 288 now clarifies that the 2 years’ time bar for collision claims also applies to claims and recourse claims for loss or damage without an actual collision.
- Time bars for GA contribution claims:
A new requirement has been introduced in Article 290 that the limitation period for claims concerning contribution to general average shall be one year, calculated from the date of completion of adjustment of general average; however, in no event shall it exceed six years from the date of the termination of the common voyage.
For claims where the limitation period had not yet expired when the New Code came into force on 1 May 2026, what rules apply to the “suspension” and “interruption” of the limitation period under the Chinese law? Is there any change in terms of ways to protect time bar?
It is first necessary to clarify two concepts under Chinese law: “suspension of limitation period” and “interruption of limitation period”. Both are statutory mechanisms in relation to the calculation of limitation period, and there is no exact equivalent under the common law system:
- “Suspension of limitation period”: If, within the last 6 months of the limitation period, a party is unable to bring their claim against the other due to obstacles beyond their control, such as force majeure (e.g., natural disasters, public emergencies), the limitation period shall be suspended. After such obstacle ceases to exist, the limitation period shall continue to run for a further 6 months of time. The purpose of this rule is to prevent a party from losing their right to bring their claim for reasons beyond their control.
- “Interruption of limitation period”: Under the original provisions of the Maritime Code, only two types of acts can trigger the interruption of the limitation period.
- A party files a lawsuit with the court or commences arbitration against the other;
- The other party explicitly agrees to perform the obligation.
Under the original provisions of the Maritime Code, for the purpose of (B) above, sending a claim letter to the other party, or making an oral demand to the other party, did not suffice to constitute interruption of the limitation period. As such, normally, formal judicial or arbitration procedures had to be gone through in order to interrupt the limitation period. In this way, the limitation period would be interrupted “once and for all”.
With the implementation of the New Code, Article 8 of the SPC Promulgation (which will be covered in more detail in the following Part) has provided that, if the limitation period of a claim had not yet expired on 1 May 2026:
- The rules on “suspension” shall be governed by the laws and judicial interpretations in force on the date when the cause for suspension ceases to exist; and
- The rules on “interruption” shall be governed by the laws and judicial interpretations in force on the date when the act of interruption occurs.
More importantly, the New Code now provides that an act of demand for performance by a party to the other (including sending a written demand letter, formal email demand, or even oral assertion with supporting evidence, etc.) can now trigger the interruption of limitation period. It is no longer necessary to first file a lawsuit or commence arbitration proceedings, which greatly reduces the cost of a party to protect their rights. However, interruption of limitation period under this new way would only mean the limitation period is “fully reset”, that the limitation period will start running afresh for another 1 year. In other words, the party will have to make a further demand for the other party’s performance of obligations within another year (and so on), in order to keep the limitation period alive.
Meanwhile, there is basically no change in operation of suspension of limitation period under the New Code.
Quick Example
The cargo arrived at the Chinese discharge port on 1 October 2025 and was found to be damaged. The cargo interests are entitled to a 1-year limitation period for the cargo damage claim. Under the original provisions of the Maritime Code, the limitation period would expire on 1 October 2026.
As the limitation period had not yet expired when the New Code came into force on 1 May 2026, this case falls within the scope of application of the transitional rules under Article 8 of the SPC Promulgation.
If the cargo interests send a claim letter to the carrier on 1 June 2026, since this act occurs after 1 May 2026, the New Code would apply. The act of sending the claim letter constitutes “interruption of limitation period”, and the 1-year limitation period would start running afresh from 1 June 2026. Under the original provisions of the Maritime Code, merely sending a claim letter would not constitute interruption of the limitation period, and the cargo interests’ claim would fail if they did not file a lawsuit or commence arbitration before 1 October 2026.
Let’s assume a major earthquake occurs on 1 September 2026 (only 1 month before the expiration of the limitation period), causing suspension of all judicial institutions and postal services for 10 days, and the cargo interests are therefore unable to exercise their rights. The cause for “suspension of limitation period” ceases to exist on 10 September 2026, and as such the suspension rules under the New Code would apply. The 10 days of suspension are not counted into the limitation period, and after 10 September 2026, the limitation period would continue to run for another 6 months. The end result is, the limitation period would only lapse on 10 March 2027.
Part 7: Does the New Code have any Retrospective Effect?
The below FAQs are based on the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Temporal Effect of the Application of the Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China”, promulgated on 27 Apr 2026 (“the SPC Promulgation”).
What is the general position regarding the retrospective effect of the New Code?
Under Chinese law, the primary reference point for the application of laws is the timing of the "legal facts" (e.g., the occurrence of a collision, a breach of contract, or the discharge of the cargo concerned).
Pursuant to this principle, if the “legal facts” occur on or after 1 May 2026, the New Code shall apply, and for “legal facts” occurred prior to 1 May 2026, the laws and judicial interpretations in force at the material time (the "Old Law") shall generally prevail, unless otherwise stipulated.
In cases where “legal facts” commenced prior to but continued beyond 1 May 2026, the New Code shall nevertheless apply, subject to some specific exceptions (which please see below).
Can the New Code be applied "retrospectively" if the Old Law was silent on a specific issue?
Yes, but with strict limitations.
If the Old Law is silent but the New Code contains clear provisions for the relevant aspects to be determined, then the New Code may be applied to the relevant facts even though they occurred before 1 May 2026.
However, the Court will refuse such application if it would:
- Obviously impair the lawful rights and interests of the parties;
- Increase the parties' statutory obligations; or
- Deviate from the parties' reasonable expectations.
It remains to be seen how the above principles will be applied by the Chinese Courts.
Will the New Code apply to cases that are still being heard in court as at 1 May 2026?
The SPC Promulgation applies to pending first-instance and second-instance cases that have not been concluded by 1 May 2026. Generally, the principles mentioned in Q25 to Q27 should be followed.
On the other hand, for cases that have been finally adjudicated in the Chinese Courts prior to 1 May 2026, the New Code would not apply even in the event of a re-trial.
Conclusion
The above sets out the major revision of the Chinese Maritime Code with a particular focus on Members’ exposure to third-party liabilities (i.e. P&I related liabilities). There are other revisions in the Code that are beyond the scope of this article. Going forward it remains to be seen how the changes will be received by practitioners and affect claims pursued in China.
* With thanks to Mervyn Chen, Wintell & Co, for his assistance in reviewing this article.
