Under the new Maritime Law, the "actual value of goods" is quietly changing and is no long
- Author:weiyun.com
- Source:weiyun.com
- Release Date:2026-02-02
In the past year, there have been significantly more cases in which the amount of cargo claims “suddenly increased”.Some are damaged goods, some are delayed in delivery, and some are held responsible after the goods were abandoned at the destination port.
Many freight forwarders and shipping companies will be confused when reviewing the price: Although the declared price is not high, why is the compensation amount supported by the court much higher than the CIF price?
The answer is probably hidden in the new Maritime Law that will be implemented~
Weiyun.com has teamed up with legal experts to help you understand quickly![This article is jointly presented by Weiyun.com and Shili Law Firm.This article is intended to provide basic legal guidance and suggestions for industry users. Its content is for reference only and is not legal advice]
An easily overlooked change
The "actual value" of goods is no longer equal to the CIF price by default!
Old law rules (current Article 55 of the Maritime Law)
The actual value of the goods = the value of the goods at the time of shipment + insurance + freight (CIF)
This is a set of logic that is very familiar to the industry and is also the “psychological anchor” for many claims negotiations.New legal rules (Article 56 of the new Maritime Law)
The actual value of the goods is based on the market price at the place of delivery.
Only when the market price cannot be determined can it be returned for use, including the value at the time of shipment + insurance + freight.
This law will come into effect on May 1, 2026.
What is the "market price at the time of delivery at the place of delivery"?
Many people's first reaction is: market price?Is it the sales price?Yes, and not just the cost price
From a judicial understanding, the "market price" here usually means: The price at which the goods are normally sold at the place of delivery, including a reasonable profit margin, is no longer limited to shipping costs or declared prices.
In other words: the available benefits are officially included in the perspective of compensation
So how to prove "market price" in judicial practice?
The court will not make a determination based on feelings, but will rely heavily on the chain of evidence.
Judging from past cases, there are three main types of core evidence:
1. The value of the goods on the customs declaration form (but not absolutely). The court will usually consider that the customs declaration value is a unilateral declaration, and the customs review focuses on compliance rather than the true transaction value.
If it can be proven that the declared customs price is obviously low, the court may not accept it.
If there is evidence to prove the actual value of the goods, the probative power of the customs declaration is greater than the probative power of the sales contract or commercial invoice;
However, if only the customs declaration amount is stated in the customs declaration form, and other facts such as sales contracts, commercial invoices and even statements can prove that the actual value of the goods is not the value of the goods stated in the customs declaration form, then the probative power of the customs declaration form will be weak.2. Goods purchase and sale contracts (high weight). Many cases have made it clear that the transaction price is the core basis for determining the value of the goods.
As long as the contract is genuine and has not been negated, the court will usually give priority to the contract price.3. Commercial invoices (especially when disputes are complicated) When encountering a situation where the price of the customs declaration is "one size fits all" and the commercial invoice is split according to model, quantity and unit price:
The court is more inclined to believe that commercial invoices can better reflect the true value.
Practical reminder
1. The more documents, the better, but they must “be able to corroborate each other”
When making a claim or defending, the most fearful thing is that the contract has one price, the invoice has another price, and the customs declaration has another price.
Once the evidence collides with each other, the court may downgrade the overall power or even deny the high-price claim.
2 Risk points that are easily overlooked
The price was renegotiated after the goods were shipped.
If the price is renegotiated with the buyer, the invoice is re-issued, or the actual payment amount changes after shipment, the value of the goods that is finally recognized by the court is likely to be the "adjusted price" rather than the initial quotation.
How much impact will the new Maritime Law have on the amount of compensation?
Many people still remain at a conceptual level regarding "market price at the time of delivery at the place of delivery".
But in actual business, the difference it brings is often not a few thousand dollars, but multiple times.
The following uses two highly practical scenarios to visually compare the compensation results under the old and new rules.
Scenario 1: The declared customs price is obviously low, but the court does not recognize the declared customs price
Scroll down to see more real business background. Common operations in export trade: The customs declaration price in the value column of the export goods declaration form is low (for ease of operation or compliance considerations), while the actual transaction price is reflected in: commercial invoices, trade orders, and bank collection documents.
How does the court rule?
The court pointed out that the declared price does not have natural priority and pointed out three key points:
1. The price in the customs declaration form is determined by the shipper’s self-declaration. 2. The customs focuses on supervision and legality, not on examining the real transaction price. 3. There is other evidence that can form a complete evidence chain.
In the end, the court denied the customs declaration price and instead determined that the price jointly confirmed by commercial invoice + trade order + bank collection shall be the actual value of the goods.
Under the new law, if the market price of the goods at the place of delivery is significantly higher than the customs price, and it is supported by evidence of real transactions, the customs price can no longer become the anchor point for compensation.
Risk warning to freight forwarders/shipping companies
Low customs price ≠ low risk
The customs declaration price is only the "unilateral declaration price", not the "compensation limit".
Scenario 2: The customs declaration price is low, but the sales price at the destination port is high
Scroll down to see more typical backgrounds. The customs declaration price of exported electronic accessories is obviously low (for tax/compliance arrangements). The market demand at the destination port is strong, and the selling price has doubled.
Under the old rules (according to CIF): claimed compensation ≈ USD 55,000 (clear compensation anchor point and clear upper limit)
Under the new rules (based on the market price at the place of delivery): Compensation can be claimed ≈ USD 95,000
Difference: +$40,000
As long as the shipper/consignee can prove: the normal sales price at the destination port is foreseeable at the time of contracting
Shipping companies/actual carriers will be exposed to claims risks that are much higher than expected.
write at the end
This is not only a change in legal provisions but also a change in the maritime risk structure.
The adjustment of the “actual value of goods” in the new Maritime Law essentially sends a clear signal:
The compensation logic of maritime cargo transportation disputes is changing from "cost-oriented" to "result-oriented".
Who has the greatest impact?
Shipping company, actual carrier, freight forwarder (especially when it comes to liability transfer and recovery chain)
The earlier you understand this rule, the less pitfalls you will encounter in contracts, declarations, risk control and claims.
Many freight forwarders and shipping companies will be confused when reviewing the price: Although the declared price is not high, why is the compensation amount supported by the court much higher than the CIF price?
The answer is probably hidden in the new Maritime Law that will be implemented~
Weiyun.com has teamed up with legal experts to help you understand quickly![This article is jointly presented by Weiyun.com and Shili Law Firm.This article is intended to provide basic legal guidance and suggestions for industry users. Its content is for reference only and is not legal advice]
An easily overlooked change
The "actual value" of goods is no longer equal to the CIF price by default!
Old law rules (current Article 55 of the Maritime Law)
The actual value of the goods = the value of the goods at the time of shipment + insurance + freight (CIF)
This is a set of logic that is very familiar to the industry and is also the “psychological anchor” for many claims negotiations.New legal rules (Article 56 of the new Maritime Law)
The actual value of the goods is based on the market price at the place of delivery.
Only when the market price cannot be determined can it be returned for use, including the value at the time of shipment + insurance + freight.
This law will come into effect on May 1, 2026.
What is the "market price at the time of delivery at the place of delivery"?
Many people's first reaction is: market price?Is it the sales price?Yes, and not just the cost price
From a judicial understanding, the "market price" here usually means: The price at which the goods are normally sold at the place of delivery, including a reasonable profit margin, is no longer limited to shipping costs or declared prices.
In other words: the available benefits are officially included in the perspective of compensation
So how to prove "market price" in judicial practice?
The court will not make a determination based on feelings, but will rely heavily on the chain of evidence.
Judging from past cases, there are three main types of core evidence:
1. The value of the goods on the customs declaration form (but not absolutely). The court will usually consider that the customs declaration value is a unilateral declaration, and the customs review focuses on compliance rather than the true transaction value.
If it can be proven that the declared customs price is obviously low, the court may not accept it.
If there is evidence to prove the actual value of the goods, the probative power of the customs declaration is greater than the probative power of the sales contract or commercial invoice;
However, if only the customs declaration amount is stated in the customs declaration form, and other facts such as sales contracts, commercial invoices and even statements can prove that the actual value of the goods is not the value of the goods stated in the customs declaration form, then the probative power of the customs declaration form will be weak.2. Goods purchase and sale contracts (high weight). Many cases have made it clear that the transaction price is the core basis for determining the value of the goods.
As long as the contract is genuine and has not been negated, the court will usually give priority to the contract price.3. Commercial invoices (especially when disputes are complicated) When encountering a situation where the price of the customs declaration is "one size fits all" and the commercial invoice is split according to model, quantity and unit price:
The court is more inclined to believe that commercial invoices can better reflect the true value.
Practical reminder
1. The more documents, the better, but they must “be able to corroborate each other”
When making a claim or defending, the most fearful thing is that the contract has one price, the invoice has another price, and the customs declaration has another price.
Once the evidence collides with each other, the court may downgrade the overall power or even deny the high-price claim.
2 Risk points that are easily overlooked
The price was renegotiated after the goods were shipped.
If the price is renegotiated with the buyer, the invoice is re-issued, or the actual payment amount changes after shipment, the value of the goods that is finally recognized by the court is likely to be the "adjusted price" rather than the initial quotation.
How much impact will the new Maritime Law have on the amount of compensation?
Many people still remain at a conceptual level regarding "market price at the time of delivery at the place of delivery".
But in actual business, the difference it brings is often not a few thousand dollars, but multiple times.
The following uses two highly practical scenarios to visually compare the compensation results under the old and new rules.
Scenario 1: The declared customs price is obviously low, but the court does not recognize the declared customs price
Scroll down to see more real business background. Common operations in export trade: The customs declaration price in the value column of the export goods declaration form is low (for ease of operation or compliance considerations), while the actual transaction price is reflected in: commercial invoices, trade orders, and bank collection documents.
How does the court rule?
The court pointed out that the declared price does not have natural priority and pointed out three key points:
1. The price in the customs declaration form is determined by the shipper’s self-declaration. 2. The customs focuses on supervision and legality, not on examining the real transaction price. 3. There is other evidence that can form a complete evidence chain.
In the end, the court denied the customs declaration price and instead determined that the price jointly confirmed by commercial invoice + trade order + bank collection shall be the actual value of the goods.
Under the new law, if the market price of the goods at the place of delivery is significantly higher than the customs price, and it is supported by evidence of real transactions, the customs price can no longer become the anchor point for compensation.
Risk warning to freight forwarders/shipping companies
Low customs price ≠ low risk
The customs declaration price is only the "unilateral declaration price", not the "compensation limit".
Scenario 2: The customs declaration price is low, but the sales price at the destination port is high
Scroll down to see more typical backgrounds. The customs declaration price of exported electronic accessories is obviously low (for tax/compliance arrangements). The market demand at the destination port is strong, and the selling price has doubled.
Under the old rules (according to CIF): claimed compensation ≈ USD 55,000 (clear compensation anchor point and clear upper limit)
Under the new rules (based on the market price at the place of delivery): Compensation can be claimed ≈ USD 95,000
Difference: +$40,000
As long as the shipper/consignee can prove: the normal sales price at the destination port is foreseeable at the time of contracting
Shipping companies/actual carriers will be exposed to claims risks that are much higher than expected.
write at the end
This is not only a change in legal provisions but also a change in the maritime risk structure.
The adjustment of the “actual value of goods” in the new Maritime Law essentially sends a clear signal:
The compensation logic of maritime cargo transportation disputes is changing from "cost-oriented" to "result-oriented".
Who has the greatest impact?
Shipping company, actual carrier, freight forwarder (especially when it comes to liability transfer and recovery chain)
The earlier you understand this rule, the less pitfalls you will encounter in contracts, declarations, risk control and claims.