Chennai brokers threaten MSC boycott over empty-container fees

Maersk’s Nov. 1 empty-container lift charge at Mundra rose from $23 to $51 per 20-foot box and from $31 to $67 per 40-foot box, before local taxes. The increases add $28 and $36 per box, or roughly 122% and 116%, turning a depot-fee adjustment into a material shipper cost.

Mundra is India’s busiest container port and the primary gateway to the hinterland around Delhi. Because the levies apply to empties moving through the port, shippers face higher costs for container pickup, repositioning and return. Forwarders can no longer treat the difference as an isolated local charge: each 20-foot empty now costs $28 more before tax.

What does the Mundra reset mean for shippers?

Maersk told customers: “Customers are requested to take notice of this change and make the necessary arrangements to ensure smooth container pick-up and drop-off operations.” The carrier also advised customers to settle the charges directly with nominated depot service providers.

That instruction places more responsibility on shippers to coordinate payment, pickup and drop-off with local vendors. It also moves the disputed transaction closer to the party controlling the yard, while leaving the ocean carrier exposed to customer resistance over the total cost. A forwarder said: “Any logistics cost increase ultimately goes straight down to the shipper, making it difficult to explain, or sort out.”

Will more carriers follow at Mundra?

Market sources expect other carriers to issue similar trade notices for empty operations at Mundra. One liner source said the matter was under discussion. That is not a commitment, and no additional carrier or effective date was identified.

If notices follow, shippers would face a broader change in which vendor invoices them, while carriers risk the friction already visible at Chennai. The key uncertainty is timing: an expected notice can raise depot prices and customer-service workload before the first container moves under a revised tariff.

Why is Chennai drawing resistance?

At Chennai, MSC appears to be the main target of a trade backlash over third-party depot vendors collecting empty-container charges directly from shippers. The Chennai Customs Brokers Association said MSC took the lead in introducing that practice and that other shipping lines subsequently started similar measures.

Cargo agents argue the model creates an unregulated collection environment. The CCBA said third-party vendors continued inflating tariffs after taking over collection, leaving its member brokers with serious economic and operational exposure and the wider trade with an open-ended financial burden.

That arrangement changes who must chase disputed invoices. CCBA members sit between carriers and cargo owners, and the association says they are increasingly caught in the middle: exporters and importers refuse to reimburse add-ons that vendors have placed on final customer bills. The result is a reimbursement dispute for brokers and a charge-pass-through problem for shippers.

An industry observer said intermediaries add price mark-ups, an area Indian logistics policymakers have been trying to streamline through reforms. The dispute therefore reaches beyond one carrier: it tests whether depot vendors become a second collection layer between carriers, brokers and cargo owners, without a clear standard for resolving contested invoices.

How far does the collection model extend?

Some carriers serving JNPA (Nhava Sheva) have switched to allowing nominated yards to collect lo-lo charges directly from shippers, despite strong resistance from the cargo-handling community. That extends the same collection question beyond Chennai and Mundra.

For forwarders, the risk is two-sided: vendors may pass higher tariffs to shippers, while brokers may be asked to explain or absorb charges that cargo owners reject. No depot tariff schedules or contracts accompanied the dispute, so the total cost difference between carrier-billed and yard-billed collections remains unquantified.

Can the boycott change the model?

The CCBA has threatened to boycott MSC shipments if the Chennai practice is not reversed by Nov. 15. It also said it would follow the same stance against other shipping lines seeking similar depot arrangements. The threat creates a concrete deadline, not proof that a shipment stop has begun.

For carriers, sustained participation could disrupt Chennai terminal workflows and customer relationships. For shippers, the immediate exposure combines higher charges with direct vendor settlement, even when intermediaries cannot recover disputed add-ons from cargo owners.

No figures accompanied the dispute for affected box volumes, TEU, tonnage, service capacity or alternative terminal arrangements. As a result, the threat signals commercial pressure rather than a measurable capacity loss. Its first measurable effects are higher empty-handling charges, more direct vendor billing and greater disagreement over who should pay.

Neither Maersk nor the CCBA supplied an all-in cost across carriers or depots, and no capacity percentage accompanied the notices. Shippers therefore lack a common benchmark for comparing direct yard settlement with other depot arrangements.

The next test comes by Nov. 15: if MSC retains direct depot collections and other liners copy the model at Mundra and JNPA, shippers are likely to face more nominated-vendor charges and contested reimbursements, while the threatened boycott remains unquantified rather than a proven capacity loss.