TRW Insight / Bangladesh
Cargo claims against carriers run under the Hague Rules, with a one-year time bar that extinguishes the claim. Notice at discharge, licensed tallies, joint surveys and the right defendant in the right court decide recovery at Chattogram.
Marine cargo claims in Bangladesh: the 2026 legal framework
Marine cargo claims in Bangladesh are won or lost on three things: the one-year time bar, the paper trail at Chattogram, and choosing the right defendant in the right court. The substantive law is old and settled. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 gives domestic effect to the Hague Rules, and its Article III rule 6 discharges the carrier and the ship from all liability unless suit is brought within one year after delivery.[1] What changes from case to case is the evidence: whether the shortage was recorded at discharge, who held the goods when they disappeared, and whether the claimant can prove value.
The courts have been busy. In 2025 the High Court Division threw out an insurer's twenty-five-year-old decree against a carrier because the suit had been filed two years after discharge, and in March 2026 the Admiralty Court returned a USD 674,000 inland container depot fire claim because it was not a maritime claim at all. This guide explains how claims for loss, shortage and damage actually unfold for importers, exporters, insurers, carriers and forwarders: the legal framework, the role of the port, survey and tally evidence, subrogation, arbitration clauses, the Admiralty Court and a realistic claim timeline.
Summary: A cargo claim against an ocean carrier under a bill of lading is governed by the Hague Rules as enacted by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925. Notice of loss must be given at delivery or within three days for hidden damage, and suit must be brought within one year of delivery or the claim is extinguished. Liability may be capped per package unless value was declared. Claims against the port, inland depots and forwarders follow different rules and often belong in the civil courts rather than the Admiralty Court.
Key point: Negotiations do not stop the clock. The High Court Division has held that the one-year period runs from delivery, not from the collapse of settlement talks, and treats it as extinguishing the claim rather than merely barring the remedy. Obtain a written extension from the carrier or issue proceedings before the anniversary of delivery.
At a glance
Governing law
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 gives domestic effect to the Hague Rules for bills of lading.
One-year time bar
Suit must be brought within one year of delivery, or the date goods should have been delivered, or liability is discharged.
Notice of loss
Written notice at removal of the goods, or within three days where loss or damage is not apparent.
Package limitation
The carrier can limit liability per package or unit unless the shipper declared nature and value in the bill of lading.
Forum
The Admiralty Court hears claims on contracts of carriage in a ship; depot and storage claims go to the civil courts.
Table of Contents
Marine cargo claims in Bangladesh: the 2026 legal framework
A cargo claim usually involves several overlapping relationships, and each has its own legal regime. Getting the regime right is the first step, because it determines the time limit, the defences and the court.
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 and the Hague Rules
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 gives domestic effect to the Hague Rules.[1] The Rules apply only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or similar document of title, and they cover the period from loading until discharge from the ship.[4] Within that window, the carrier must issue on demand a bill of lading showing marks, quantity or weight and the apparent order and condition of the goods, and the bill is prima facie evidence that the carrier received the goods as described.[4]
The carrier's duties are the familiar ones: exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy and properly care for the cargo. Its defences are equally familiar: navigational error, fire without actual fault, perils of the sea, act of God, inherent vice, insufficient packing, latent defects and a general exception for causes without the carrier's fault or privity, which the carrier must prove.[4] Most contested marine cargo claims in Bangladesh turn on two of these: inherent vice in agricultural and bulk cargo, and the question of whether the loss happened on board or after discharge.
Tackle to tackle, and what happens after discharge
Because the Rules run from loading to discharge, the carrier's statutory exposure ends when the goods leave the ship's tackle. In a 1974 decision on a Karachi to Chittagong shipment, the High Court of Sindh, applying the same 1925 Act, treated a bill of lading clause ending liability once goods are free of the tackle as valid, and have treated the port authority as the shipowner's statutory bailee rather than the consignee's.[7] That decision is only persuasive in Bangladesh, but its practical point remains: the carrier must still prove what was discharged. Where it cannot show that the full quantity left the ship, it remains liable for the shortfall.[7]
Domestic carriage and the Limitation Act
The Hague Rules regime is for international carriage under a bill of lading. For domestic carriage by sea, cargo claimants have relied on Articles 30 and 31 of the Limitation Act 1908, and the High Court Division has expressly distinguished those cases when applying the one-year rule to international shipments.[1] Coastal and river cargo therefore needs separate analysis.
The one-year time bar under Article III rule 6
No rule causes more lost marine cargo claims in Bangladesh than this one. Article III rule 6 discharges the carrier and the ship from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when they should have been delivered.[1] [4]
What "delivery" means
The 1925 Act defines delivery as removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery under the contract of carriage.[1] For a total loss or a short landing, time runs from when the goods should have been delivered. In practice, claimants should calculate the anniversary from the earliest plausible date, usually the completion of discharge, rather than from the date the consignee finally cleared the goods through customs.
Settlement talks do not extend time
In Hasan Vegetable Oil Mills Ltd v MT Sceptre, decided by the High Court Division in 2011, a soybean oil cargo was delivered on 22 June 1999 but the admiralty suit was filed on 13 May 2001. The claimant argued that time ran from the failure of settlement talks in April 2001. The court rejected the argument, held Article III rule 6 to be "very clear" and entered judgment for the defendants.[1] The vessel had been arrested and released against a bank guarantee, so the claimant had security in hand and still lost on time.
The 2025 Atlas Shipping judgment
On 24 November 2025, in Atlas Shipping Lines Ltd v Sadharan Bima Corporation (First Appeal No. 187 of 2000), the High Court Division set aside a 1999 decree in favour of a subrogated insurer. A potassium carbonate cargo had been discharged at Chattogram in August 1988, the insurer paid the consignee and took a letter of subrogation, and suit was filed on 21 August 1990. The court treated Article III rule 6 as substantive law that completely extinguishes liability, noted that the insurer's own internal correspondence had recorded a deadline of 21 August 1989, and found in any event that port records showed full delivery taken without objection.[2]
Two lessons follow. First, an insurer stands in the cargo owner's shoes and inherits the same time bar; payment under the policy does not reset the clock. Second, a consignee who takes delivery without recording any shortage hands the carrier its best evidence.
Protecting time in practice
- Diary the anniversary at discharge. Do not wait for the survey report or the insurer's decision.
- Ask for a written extension. Carriers and their P&I clubs commonly grant extensions on request; make sure it is in writing, from the right entity and for a defined period.
- Issue protectively. If an extension is refused or unclear, file before the deadline and negotiate afterwards.
- Check the bill of lading. Arbitration clauses, jurisdiction clauses and incorporated charterparty terms can shorten time or require a different forum.
Notice of loss and the first 72 hours at Chattogram
Article III rule 6 also requires written notice of loss or damage and its general nature to be given to the carrier or its agent at the port of discharge before or at the time the goods are removed into the custody of the person entitled to them. Where the loss or damage is not apparent, notice must be given within three days of delivery.[4] Failure to give notice does not destroy the claim, but it makes the removal of the goods prima facie evidence that they were delivered as described in the bill of lading. In a contested case that presumption is very hard to overcome.
What a good notice contains
A good notice identifies the vessel, voyage, bill of lading number, container or marks and numbers, the nature of the problem (shortage, wetting, crushing, contamination, rot, broken seals) and a statement that the consignee holds the carrier responsible and invites a joint survey. It should go to the carrier's local agent by email and by hand, with acknowledgment. Where damage is suspected but not visible, for example heat damage inside a reefer or caking in bagged fertiliser, send a protective notice within three days and complete it after survey.
Why the paper trail at discharge matters so much
The port's records are often the decisive evidence. In Albert David (Bangladesh) Ltd v Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, the carrier's local agent acknowledged a short landing and the port issued a certificate to the same effect, which made the claim straightforward.[3] In Atlas Shipping, by contrast, port records showing all 8,000 bags delivered to the consignee without objection defeated the claim on the merits as well as on time.[2] Consignees and their clearing agents should therefore insist that any shortage or damage is recorded on the port's delivery documents, landing certificates and tally sheets before goods leave the port.
Shortage and damage at Chattogram port
Chattogram handles more than 90 per cent of Bangladesh's import and export cargo, which makes it the place where most marine cargo claims in Bangladesh begin.[9] Shortages arise in three typical ways: short shipment at load port, loss or pilferage on board, and loss or damage in the port, depot or customs custody after discharge. Each points to a different defendant.
Tally and survey evidence
Tally sheets are the primary record of what came off the ship. P&I correspondents have long recommended that bagged cargo at Chattogram be tallied, and that carriers use only tally contractors licensed by the port authority, because the port prohibits unlicensed tally work and unauthorised tallies may not stand up in court.[11] Claimants should obtain copies of the ship's and the port's tally records and compare them against the bill of lading and the manifest.
Survey reports are the second pillar. A joint survey attended by the carrier's surveyor carries far more weight than a unilateral one. In the TCB onion cargo case decided in July 2025, post-landing and joint surveys attributed the damage to dumping during loading, ineffective ventilation and rough weather, and that evidence allowed the High Court Division to distinguish external causes from inherent vice and to hold the carrier liable for short landing and negligent stowage and ventilation.[5]
Liquid bulk and the 1 per cent allowance
Liquid bulk cargo has its own history. After a dispute lasting roughly forty years, the Appellate Division upheld a High Court Division ruling that customs penalties for short landing based on shore tank measurements were unlawful, that the joint ullage survey on board after arrival and before discharge should be relied on, and that a 1 per cent transit loss allowance applies.[10] The same logic informs civil claims: shortages within normal transit loss tolerances are hard to recover, and the defendants in MT Sceptre relied on a 1 per cent tolerance and the inherent nature of the cargo before winning on time.[1]
Claims against the port authority and inland container depots
Once goods leave the ship's tackle, the carrier usually drops out and the port, an inland container depot or customs becomes the custodian. These claims sit outside the Hague Rules.
The Chittagong Port Authority
The port authority operates under the Chittagong Port Authority Act 2022 and the Regulations for Working of Chittagong Port (Cargo and Container) 2001. It has shown that it will resist liability firmly. In September 2023, before any claims had been filed, it issued a notice disclaiming all compensation for damage to import and export cargo caused by heavy rain and flooding from 5 August that year, describing the rainfall as an act of God, invoking regulation 199(14) of the 2001 Regulations and asserting that the 2022 Act does not make it liable. The president of the national chamber of commerce disputed the position and said the authority must compensate if cargo in low-lying areas was damaged.[8]
Custody disputes in 2026
In July 2026 customs alleged that the port could not account for about 250 containers locked in the ASYCUDA World system, and sought reimbursement of Tk 1.06 crore for a container of fabric sold at auction but never delivered to the buyer. Customs maintains that the port, as statutory custodian of imported cargo under the Customs Act 2023, is responsible for safe custody and delivery; the port calls the allegation baseless and says most consignments were released or moved to depots.[9] For cargo owners, the dispute is a reminder that liability after discharge can be contested between two arms of the state, and that the claimant needs container-level documentary evidence of where the goods were and who released them.
Inland container depots and the 2026 Admiralty Court order
Export cargo increasingly sits in private off-dock depots before loading. On 10 March 2026, in Admiralty Suit No. 26 of 2025, the Admiralty Court considered a subrogated transport insurer's claim for USD 674,641.44 against a Chattogram depot after a fire on 4 June 2022 destroyed garments in two containers awaiting shipment to the United States. The insurer relied on section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Court Act 2000, which covers claims arising out of agreements relating to the carriage of goods in a ship.
The court held that no bill of lading or concluded contract of carriage existed at the time of the fire, the bills being dated afterwards; that the depot was a bailee for reward providing storage before any loading; and that the claim was not maritime. It returned the plaint for presentation in a court of competent jurisdiction.[6]
The order matters for every insurer and exporter. A depot claim is a bailment or negligence claim in the ordinary civil or commercial courts, and the time limits and procedure are those of that forum, not the Hague Rules. Filing in the wrong court wastes months, and in a time-sensitive claim it can be fatal.
Package limitation and proving value
Under Article IV rule 5 of the Hague Rules, the carrier may limit its liability per package or unit unless the shipper declared the nature and value of the goods before shipment and the declaration was inserted in the bill of lading. In Albert David, a chloramphenicol cargo shipped from Bremen to Chittagong was not delivered. The carrier argued for the £100 per package limit in its bill of lading, but the bill and the attached statement showed that the shipper had declared nature and value, so the court allowed recovery of the full value.[3]
For high-value pharmaceuticals, electronics and machinery parts, the practical lesson is to make the declaration on the bill of lading itself, not only on the commercial invoice. For containerised cargo, check how packages are described on the bill: "1 x 40ft container said to contain 500 cartons" invites argument about whether the package is the container or the carton.
Value must also be proved. A commercial invoice, packing list and letter of credit documents are the usual evidence, and courts have accepted invoice-based apportionment where nothing suggests the lost units differed from the rest.[7] Interest is another point of failure: in Albert David the claimant recovered the full value but lost its claim to 20 per cent annual interest because it was not substantiated.[3]
Insurers, subrogation and recovery
Many marine cargo claims in Bangladesh are brought by insurers after paying the cargo owner. Marine insurance in Bangladesh is not governed by a specific statute; the courts apply general contract principles and the English Marine Insurance Act 1906, as followed by the Appellate Division in Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Rahmania Trading Co.[5]
What the 2025 TCB judgment decided
In Sadharan Bima Corporation v Trading Corporation of Bangladesh (First Appeal No. 11 of 2003), decided on 30 July 2025, the High Court Division held that an all risks policy with a 10 per cent excess covered loss from external, fortuitous causes such as improper dumping, lack of care and ventilation failure, but not short landing, short contents or rot attributable to the nature of the goods.
The insurer was ordered to pay about Tk 55.67 lakh after deducting the excess. The court declared the carrier liable for short landing and negligent stowage and ventilation, held that its default in the proceedings did not relieve it of liability, and confirmed that the insurer has subrogation rights against the carrier after payment, observing that the insurer's liability is "secondary, not ultimate".[5]
Practical subrogation points
- Take a proper letter of subrogation. It should identify the policy, the loss, the amount paid and the rights transferred.
- Join the cargo owner where needed. In Atlas Shipping the consignee was joined as a defendant; where title or the amount paid is contested, joining the insured avoids standing arguments.[2]
- Watch the time bar from the cargo owner's perspective. The insurer inherits the original one-year period.
- Coordinate claims against the insurer and the carrier. A cargo owner may sue both; the court can then allocate primary liability to the carrier and secondary liability to the insurer.[5]
Our guide to marine insurance claims in Bangladesh covers policy wording, survey and settlement with the insurer.
Carriers, NVOCCs and freight forwarders
The carrier under the Hague Rules is the party that enters into the contract of carriage with the shipper. In containerised trade that is often not the vessel operator. A freight forwarder or non-vessel-operating common carrier that issues its own house bill of lading in its own name usually takes on carrier obligations under that bill, while the master bill sits between the forwarder and the shipping line.
The practical consequence is that a consignee may have a contractual claim against the house bill issuer, which may then have a recourse claim against the ocean carrier under the master bill. Each claim has its own one-year clock, and the recourse claim is often the one that is lost, because the forwarder waits for the consignee's claim to crystallise. Forwarders should notify the ocean carrier and obtain an extension as soon as a shortage is reported.
Where the forwarder acted only as agent and issued no bill, the claim against it lies in negligence or breach of the agency contract, not under the Hague Rules. The March 2026 depot fire claim named a freight forwarder alongside the depot, and the court's analysis turned on whether any contract of carriage existed at the time of loss.[6] Our guide to bill of lading disputes in Bangladesh explains how house and master bills interact.
Choosing the forum for marine cargo claims in Bangladesh
The Admiralty Court
The High Court Division's admiralty jurisdiction under section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Court Act 2000 covers claims arising out of agreements relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship.[6] An admiralty action in rem allows the claimant to arrest the vessel and obtain security, as the cargo owner did in MT Sceptre, where the ship was released against a bank guarantee.[1] Arrest is the strongest lever in a cargo claim, because it converts a claim against a foreign carrier into a secured claim against local security. See our guides to admiralty suits and vessel arrest and release.
The civil courts
Claims against the port, depots and other bailees, and many claims against insurers, proceed as money suits in the civil courts. Both 2025 appellate decisions discussed above began as suits in the ordinary civil courts.[2] [5] Those suits took decades to reach final appellate judgment, which is the strongest argument for early settlement or security.
Arbitration clauses in bills of lading
Liner bills commonly contain jurisdiction or arbitration clauses, and bills issued under charterparties often incorporate the charter's London arbitration clause. Courts in Bangladesh generally respect arbitration agreements, but the effect of a foreign-seated clause on local proceedings needs case-specific advice. A claimant should identify the clause on the reverse of the bill at the outset and decide whether to arrest locally and arbitrate abroad, or to commence where the bill directs. Our analysis of maritime arbitration in Bangladesh covers the options.
| Where the loss happened | Likely defendant | Legal basis | Forum and time |
|---|---|---|---|
| On board, between loading and discharge | Ocean carrier or house bill issuer | Hague Rules under the 1925 Act | Admiralty Court or arbitration; one year from delivery |
| In the port after discharge | Chittagong Port Authority | Statutory custody under port law and regulations | Civil court; statutory notice and limitation rules |
| In customs custody | Customs and port, depending on release | Custody under the Customs Act 2023 | Civil court or administrative route |
| In an inland container depot before shipment | Depot operator and possibly forwarder | Bailment and negligence | Civil or commercial court, not admiralty |
| Under the insurance policy | Cargo insurer | Policy terms and Marine Insurance Act 1906 principles | Civil court; policy notice conditions |
| Domestic coastal carriage | Coastal or river carrier | Contract and Limitation Act 1908 | Civil court |
On a phone, scroll the table sideways. The right forum depends on who held the goods when the loss happened, not on who the claimant would most like to sue.
A realistic claim timeline
The sequence below reflects how marine cargo claims in Bangladesh typically unfold when they are handled well.
Day 0: note the problem
Record shortage or damage on port delivery documents and landing records before removing the goods.
Days 0 to 3: serve notice
Give written notice to the carrier's local agent, and a protective notice within three days for hidden damage.
Week 1: joint survey
Invite the carrier, port and insurer to a joint survey and collect licensed tally sheets.
Week 2: assemble the file
Gather the bill of lading, manifest, invoice, packing list, survey report and correspondence.
Month 1: notify insurers and seek security
Lodge the insurance claim and ask the carrier or its P&I club for a letter of undertaking.
Before month 11: protect time
Obtain a written extension from the correct carrier entity or issue proceedings.
Choose the forum
Admiralty Court for carriage claims and arrest; civil courts for port and depot claims; arbitration if the bill requires it.
Settle or litigate
Negotiate against security; if the claim is contested, prepare survey and tally witnesses for trial.
The cases show how long contested litigation can run: the Atlas Shipping suit filed in 1990 was finally decided on appeal in November 2025, and the TCB onion claim arising from a 1981 shipment reached its appellate judgment in July 2025.[2] [5] Security obtained at the outset, through arrest or a club letter of undertaking, is what makes early settlement realistic.
Common mistakes in marine cargo claims in Bangladesh
- Letting the year run during negotiations. Talks do not stop time, and the bar extinguishes the claim.[1]
- Taking clean delivery. Removing goods without noting shortage or damage creates a presumption of proper delivery.[4]
- Relying on unlicensed tallies or unilateral surveys. Evidence that the other side did not attend is easier to attack.[11]
- Suing the carrier for a post-discharge loss. If the goods left the tackle intact, the claim lies against the custodian.[7]
- Filing a depot claim in the Admiralty Court. Without a contract of carriage in a ship, the plaint may be returned.[6]
- Failing to declare value. Without a declaration on the bill, the package limitation can cap recovery.[3]
What to watch in 2026 and beyond
Three developments will shape marine cargo claims in Bangladesh over the coming year. First, the Admiralty Court's March 2026 order narrows the maritime route for pre-shipment depot losses and will push insurers towards the civil courts and contractual terms with depots. Second, the 2026 custody dispute between the port and customs will test who answers for containers that go missing after discharge under the Customs Act 2023. Third, the appellate courts are clearing old cargo appeals, and their 2025 judgments confirm a strict approach to the time bar and an evidence-led approach to inherent vice.[2] [5] [6] [9]
TRW's admiralty and maritime dispute resolution practice acts for cargo interests, insurers, carriers and forwarders on notices, surveys, vessel arrest, Admiralty Court suits and recovery actions. To protect a claim before time runs, contact our Dhaka team.
Frequently asked questions
What law governs marine cargo claims in Bangladesh?
Claims against carriers under bills of lading are governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925, which gives domestic effect to the Hague Rules.[1]
What is the time limit for a cargo claim against a carrier?
Do settlement negotiations extend the one-year period?
No. The High Court Division has rejected the argument that time runs from the failure of settlement talks. Obtain a written extension or file suit.[1]
When must notice of loss or damage be given?
In writing before or at removal of the goods, or within three days of delivery where the loss or damage is not apparent.[4]
Can a carrier limit its liability per package?
Yes, unless the shipper declared the nature and value of the goods before shipment and the declaration appears in the bill of lading.[3]
Is the Chittagong Port Authority liable for lost or damaged cargo?
Can an insurer sue the carrier after paying a claim?
Does the Admiralty Court hear claims against inland container depots?
Not where no contract of carriage in a ship existed at the time of loss. In March 2026 the Admiralty Court returned a depot fire claim for filing in an ordinary civil court.[6]
Can I arrest a ship for a cargo claim?
Source register
Primary legal and regulatory sources
Materials checked on 23 October 2026. Confirm the current official text before relying on any provision.
- CML CMI Database — Hasan Vegetable Oil Mills Ltd v MT Sceptre (HCD, 2011)
- Atlas Shipping Lines Ltd v Sadharan Bima Corporation, First Appeal No. 187 of 2000 (HCD, 24 November 2025)
- CML CMI Database — Albert David (Bangladesh) Ltd v Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (1982) 34 DLR 356
- International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading (Hague Rules)
- Sadharan Bima Corporation v Trading Corporation of Bangladesh, First Appeal No. 11 of 2003 (HCD, 30 July 2025)
- Falvey Insurance Group v BM Container Depot Ltd, Admiralty Suit No. 26 of 2025 (order of 10 March 2026)
- CML CMI Database — New Jubilee Insurance v carrier, High Court of Sindh (1974), Karachi to Chittagong cotton cargo
- The Financial Express, 2 September 2023 — CPA won't compensate for any cargo damage
- The Business Standard, July 2026 — Ctg port and customs locked in blame game over missing containers
- Gard, 29 September 2021 — Bangladesh customs practice for assessing shortage of liquid bulk cargo
- UK P&I Club, Bulletin 571 — Recommended use of licensed tally contractors, Chittagong
Related TRW assistance
Move from information to a defined next step
TRW acts for cargo owners, insurers, carriers and forwarders on notices of claim, surveys, vessel arrest, Admiralty Court suits and subrogated recoveries. Explore our maritime, shipping and admiralty practice or contact TRW in Dhaka.