'No payment, no release' it sounds like a freight forwarder’s “final line of defense.” Yet once the case reaches court, this practice may be deemed an act of coercion. Recently, a freight forwarder was ruled guilty of coercion after detaining cargo to collect overdue charges. The surprising verdict has sent a strong warning to the entire freight forwarding community.

I. Case Review: Cargo Detention Triggered by an “Old Debt”

1. Complex business relationships create hidden risks

Exporter Company B purchased a batch of masks from manufacturer Company A for export to the United States. The export operation was handled by Shanghai freight forwarder Company C, entrusted by Company B. For customs declaration convenience, Company A was listed as the shipper on the Bill of Lading, though Company B was the actual client and payer.

2. New shipment detained, old debt resurfaced

Several months later, Company A booked cargo to Bangladesh through another forwarder Company D, which in turn subcontracted the shipment to Company C. Just before the cargo cutoff, Company C demanded that Company D pay an overdue container detention charge of RMB 42,240 from the prior New York shipment, otherwise, the cargo would not be allowed to enter the port. To avoid shipment delay, Company A reluctantly made the payment but later filed a lawsuit.

3. Conflicting claims

Company A argued that the New York shipment cost was the responsibility of Company B, not theirs. Company C contended that since Company A was listed as the shipper on the Bill of Lading, it was legally obligated to pay the charges and that the forwarder had the right of lien over the cargo.

II. Court’s Reasoning: Defining “Coercion” and “Right of Lien”

After trial, the court reached three key findings:

1.Shipper identity invalid

The shipper listed on the Bill of Lading does not necessarily represent the actual client. Based on transaction records and correspondence, Company A was not the contractual principal for the New York shipment.

2.Wrong cost bearer

The detention charge arose after the consignee delayed returning the container. The liability therefore rested with the consignee, not Company A.

3.Cargo detention as coercion

The court held that Company C had no valid claim against Company A, yet restricted the cargo’s release by demanding payment under threat of non-delivery. This behavior met the definition of coercion — “threatening to cause loss to force the other party to act against their true intent.”

Verdict: the payment was rescinded, and Company C was ordered to refund RMB 42,240 plus interest.

III. Risk Analysis: The Right of Lien ≠ the Right to Detain at Will

Many freight forwarders mistakenly believe that the right of lien can solve all overdue payment issues. In fact, it is a double-edged sword strictly limited by law.

1.Lien conditions are highly restrictive

Under the Civil Code and Maritime Law of China, exercising a lien requires:

·The cargo must belong to the debtor;

·The debt must be due;

·The liened cargo and the debt must arise from the same legal relationship.

Company C met none of these conditions. Therefore, its lien was unlawful.

2.Bill of Lading shipper ≠ actual client

Freight forwarders must confirm the responsible payer based on the booking instruction, contract, and payment records, rather than relying solely on the B/L surface information.

3.“No payment, no release” may constitute coercion

Refusing to release cargo unless payment is made fits the classic definition of coercion. Once recognized by the court, the forwarder may be ordered to refund the entire amount with interest.

IV. Risk Mitigation: Four Steps to Avoid “Cargo Detention Traps”

Based on this case, freight forwarders should pay special attention during operation and settlement stages:

1.Clarify business ownership

Clearly label the entrusting party and payment responsible party in the system to prevent confusion.

2.Standardize debt collection

For overdue payments, adopt formal channels such as written notices, lawyer’s letters, litigation, or arbitration, not cargo detention or demurrage threats.

3.Verify lien conditions carefully

Check whether the debt is due, whether the cargo belongs to the debtor, and whether both relate to the same legal relationship to avoid coercive liens.

4.Preserve communication records

Keep booking instructions, invoices, emails, and correspondence, especially documents identifying the client for at least six months.

This case serves as a powerful reminder to all freight forwarders: detaining cargo is not a shortcut for debt recovery. Any action exceeding the lawful scope of lien may be judged as coercion, turning an attempt to protect one’s interest into a costly legal mistake.