The Directorate General of Shipping (DG Shipping), under the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, Government of India, convened a high-level meeting with exporters and industry stakeholders on 17 April 2026 to address the ongoing crisis arising from disruptions in maritime services linked to geopolitical developments in the Middle East.
The meeting formally recognized that the challenges faced by exporters are systemic, widespread, and not isolated incidents, cutting across sectors, ports, and shipment categories, and require policy-level intervention. Exporters across industries—including agri commodities, food products, FMCG, and handicrafts—highlighted severe operational and financial distress resulting from unilateral actions by global shipping lines.
Containers remain stranded across ports, ICDs, and transshipment hubs due to service suspensions, rerouting, and cargo diversions. Despite the disruption in cargo movement, exporters continue to incur detention, demurrage, and multiple ancillary charges.
Ms. Priyanka Mittal, Chairperson, Basmati Rice Farmers & Exporters Development Forum, stated, “We appreciate DG Shipping’s proactive step in formally documenting exporter grievances and acknowledging the scale and seriousness of the issue. However, the situation on the ground continues to remain extremely challenging for exporters.”
Exporters reported widespread imposition of charges that are arbitrary, non-transparent, and disproportionate to services rendered, including war risk surcharges (WRS), detention, demurrage, congestion levies, and transshipment-related costs. War risk surcharges alone have ranged from USD 800 to USD 6,000 per container, often imposed without prior notice or revised retrospectively. In several cases, cumulative charges have escalated to 60–70% of cargo value, rendering exports commercially unviable.
Operational disruptions have further aggravated the situation, with shipping lines unilaterally:
-
Diverting cargo to alternate ports such as Jebel Ali, Sohar, and Salalah
-
Holding containers at transshipment hubs without clarity on onward movement
-
Returning containers to origin ports (“back-to-town” scenarios)
These decisions have been taken without adequate consultation with exporters, while the financial burden arising from such disruptions continues to be borne entirely by them.
“Exporters are effectively being asked to absorb open-ended financial liability for circumstances entirely beyond their control. This is not sustainable and requires urgent correction,” Ms. Mittal added.
A key concern highlighted during the meeting was the lack of transparency and absence of standardized norms governing shipping line charges. Exporters noted that charges are frequently imposed without adequate justification or cost breakdown, and often communicated after cargo movement has commenced, creating significant uncertainty and contractual risk.
The discussions also brought out a critical structural gap in India’s maritime ecosystem, including the absence of a clear regulatory framework governing shipping line practices, lack of standardization in the application of detention and demurrage, and absence of defined protocols for handling force majeure situations and cargo diversions.
“In this context, the continued imposition of charges without commensurate service delivery raises important questions of alignment with the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and carrier obligations embedded within India’s maritime regulatory framework, including the Merchant Shipping Act,” Ms. Mittal noted.
Exporters, particularly MSMEs, highlighted a significant imbalance in bargaining power between large global shipping lines and individual exporters, leaving them with limited recourse and exposing them to disproportionate financial risks. The ongoing accumulation of charges has created what many described as a “running meter,” severely impacting working capital and, in some cases, forcing exporters to consider abandoning cargo.
Beyond immediate financial stress, the situation is straining export commitments, disrupting long-standing buyer relationships, and undermining India’s credibility as a reliable supplier in global markets.
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 (IMG), DGFT, and other relevant authorities for policy-level consideration. Industry bodies including FIEO have also submitted consolidated representations reflecting the widespread nature of the issue.
While acknowledging the facilitative role played by DG Shipping, the industry has urged time-bound and decisive intervention, including:
-
Ensuring that charges are strictly linked to actual services rendered
-
Directing shipping lines to release and allow return of containers without linkage to disputed charges
-
Establishing clear regulatory guidelines for treatment of cargo during force majeure and geopolitical disruptions
-
Introducing standardized norms and transparency requirements for shipping line charges
“Immediate relief is essential to prevent further financial damage. At the same time, this situation presents an opportunity to address long-standing structural gaps and create a more transparent, balanced, and resilient maritime trade framework for India,” Ms. Mittal said.
The industry emphasized the need for a collaborative, rules-based approach, with regulators, shipping lines, and exporters working together to ensure continuity of trade while upholding fairness and accountability.
Exporters remain hopeful that the ongoing engagement will lead to timely, structured, and enforceable solutions that safeguard India’s agri, FMCG, and MSME export sectors—critical pillars supporting farmer incomes, employment, and the broader economy.
“If left unaddressed, such practices risk setting a precedent that could undermine confidence in India’s maritime trade framework and distort fair market conduct,” Ms Mittal concluded.
