BIS probes 47 Apex shipments over suspected Nvidia chip diversion

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security is examining 47 shipments handled in 2024 by Apex Logistics. The Singapore-based freight forwarder is wholly owned by Kuehne+Nagel and faces scrutiny over suspected Nvidia-powered AI chip diversion to China.

Bloomberg reported the inquiry, citing people familiar with the matter. BIS is testing whether Apex moved AI servers built by Super Micro Computer that contain restricted Nvidia chips. The suspected route ran from Taiwan to the United States, then to Southeast Asia and Hong Kong before the hardware entered mainland China. The number of chips involved is unknown.

What makes the inquiry different?

If the investigation leads to action, it would be the first case against a transportation company for alleged participation in the illegal semiconductor trade, rather than against a manufacturer, broker or buyer. Washington has spent three years pursuing chip diversion through tighter customer checks on manufacturers and prosecutions of the individuals who arrange it.

Until this inquiry, the freight forwarder that physically moved the goods had not been the target. Regulators appear to be testing whether a forwarder’s usual information gap still protects it when the cargo itself falls under national-security controls.

What does it mean for freight operators?

A forwarder generally moves what a customer books and, once the shipment changes hands farther down the chain, often has no visibility of its ultimate destination. For shippers, the stakes have risen with demand: high-value cloud, semiconductor and AI hardware has displaced lower-value cargo on capacity-constrained routes.

Carriers and forwarders spent much of the past year competing for exactly this category of freight: high-value, high-priority cloud, semiconductor and AI hardware. BIS is now examining how that freight moved, not simply how much moved, bringing routing and destination information into the commercial debate.

The likely commercial consequence is closer examination of customer checks and final-destination visibility for shippers, carriers and forwarders handling sensitive technology cargo. No new compliance rule has been published, and the probe has not established that Apex violated the law.

What are the companies saying?

A Kuehne+Nagel spokesperson confirmed that Apex Logistics “is fully cooperating with the relevant authorities regarding this isolated matter within a wider US government investigation.” The parent company itself “has not been contacted by the authorities” and could not comment further while the matter remained under investigation.

Apex acknowledged U.S. concerns about “a small number of shipments that Apex handled in 2024 and which may have involved materials and equipment which were ultimately forwarded to prohibited locations.” The forwarder said it had introduced enhanced compliance procedures since the investigation began and is committed to full compliance. BIS declined to comment.

Which export rules apply?

The export controls at the center of the case date to October 2022, when BIS introduced sweeping controls on advanced computing chips, the equipment used to manufacture them and the supercomputing capabilities they enable. Commerce said the rules aim to limit China’s ability to acquire technology with military applications, including artificial intelligence.

BIS has expanded the controls twice since, most recently in December 2024. The inquiry therefore sits within a period of active tightening, although authorities have disclosed no charge, chip count or enforcement timetable.

How significant is Apex?

Apex moved 420,000 tonnes of airfreight in 2024, according to Partners Group, the private equity firm that sold its stake in the company to Kuehne+Nagel that year. K+N’s air logistics division handled 2.1 million tons over the same year, putting Apex at roughly one-fifth of the group’s total airfreight volume.

Partners Group’s figure establishes Apex’s scale, not the value or density of the questioned shipments. K+N separately credited Apex with driving much of its recent air-cargo growth, citing particular strength in semiconductor and e-commerce shipments out of Asia.

That scale makes the inquiry relevant to competitors well beyond Apex. They now face a visible test of whether losing sight of a shipment’s ultimate destination after a handoff offers protection when the cargo is subject to national-security controls.

What does the Amazon collaboration mean?

Kuehne+Nagel and Amazon have entered a long-term strategic collaboration, building on their existing relationship to support future growth and improve customer services. The partnership includes Amazon Web Services and covers logistics for cloud-infrastructure projects from construction and equipment deployment through maintenance and expansion.

K+N says its global airfreight capabilities and digital expertise will support resilience and efficiency and help Amazon and AWS scale infrastructure operations worldwide. For shippers, the arrangement links project logistics across construction, deployment, maintenance and expansion; for carriers and forwarders, it reinforces the strategic importance of high-value technology freight.

The announcement gives no freight volume, rate, capacity commitment or revenue figure, so its near-term effect on pricing or available capacity cannot be calculated. That caveat matters as carriers and forwarders compete for technology freight on constrained routes.

Where could compliance go?

Nothing has been proven, and Apex and K+N say they are cooperating. Yet the scrutiny lands after a year in which high-value technology freight reshaped U.S. airfreight, filling capacity-sensitive positions generally taken by lower-value cargo.

For the industry, the structural issue is that growth increasingly runs through Asia-U.S. lanes carrying precisely the hardware Washington seeks to keep out of China. The unresolved question is how far compliance duties extend: must a forwarder know the final destination before accepting a load, continue checking it after each handoff, or both? BIS has not said which test it will apply.

Because authorities have disclosed no charge, chip count or timetable, no rate or capacity effect can yet be quantified; the case instead points toward policy scrutiny of the forwarders physically routing high-value hardware on Asia-U.S. lanes.