HONG Kong Shippers’ Council has criticised local port terminals for their imposing deposits on Hanjin boxes, adding it might file litigation against such “unacceptable” moves.

The organisation has received hundreds of calls from its members and some outside importers, complaining that one of the city’s terminal operators has forced them to pledge a considerable amount of cash before they can take their Hanjin Shipping containers out of the port.

“This is really like highway ransom,” HKSC chairman Willy Lin told Lloyd’s List.

“The financial dispute is between Hanjin Shipping and the terminals. Cargo receivers should not be used as a pawn.”

Mr Lin declined to disclose the name of the operator. However, Lloyd’s List has learned separately that it is HPH Trust-owned Hong Kong International Terminals, a main receiver of Hanjin’s boxships.  The deposit is said to be HK$10,000 ($1,290) for a 40 ft box and HK$6,000 for a 20 ft box. HIT refused to comment, only saying it “endeavours to help affected parties to minimise the impact of the disruption to their supply chain”.

Mr Lin said most of the complainants are small and medium-sized local firms, which could suffer huge losses from damage to their cargoes, especially food and wines, due to delay in deliveries.

At the same time, the deposit has also caused huge financial burden for these SMEs.

“I know some forwarders have put down HK$10m-HK$15m to get their boxes,” said Mr Lin.

He added that a small sum in extra handling fees — such as a surcharge of €25 ($28.11) per container ruled by the court in Rotterdam over Europe Container Terminals — was acceptable, but “nothing more”.

The council has consulted its lawyers, while taking legal action against the terminals is under consideration, according to Mr Lin.

“We’ve expressed our concerns to the Hong Kong Terminal Operators Association,” he said, adding that the terminal operators, with a global business scope, should not want to see their brand name stained.

“Nobody wants to go to litigation, but if they want, surely we’ll win.”

Ince & Co partner Su Yin Anand, who has also received similar complaints about terminal deposits, tended to support Mr Lin’s argument.

“Terminals are unlikely to have any legal basis to impose such deposits on cargo owners or freight forwarders as they are not the terminal’s contractual parties,” she said.

Hong Kong is not the only port in China to have made such moves. Lloyd’s List reported that Shanghai and Tianjin have also demanded similar deposits from local shippers, as part of the efforts to seize Hanjin containers.  

A source from the port of Shanghai told Lloyd’s List that the deposit was an emergency measure to make sure the empty boxes would be returned to ports, as security for Hanjin’s port fee arrears.

To add more pressure to the terminals, the HKSC has also informed the Hong Kong government of the problem, while it will issue an official complaint to Beijing shortly, said Mr Lin.

“I think this time terminals are jumping the gun a bit too fast and too greedy,” he said.

“They could’ve asked the court for a lien on those containers.”

That said, the Hong Kong cargo owners and freight forwarders might still have to pay the “ransom” first to the terminals, as suggested by Mr Lin, as litigation can take time and greater cargo damage or defaults on downstream clients should be avoided.