China flag and ship

China’s New 2026 Supply Chain Laws: What You Need to Know

May 27, 2026 | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China is rewiring the legal framework around its ports and supply chains and that matters for every UK shipper moving goods to, from or via China. 

Two new sets of rules in 2026 change who controls disputes, how far you can probe your supply chain, and how China may respond to Western sanctions and due‑diligence demands.

Below we set out what’s changing and what Metro’s customers should be thinking about.

New maritime law puts China’s courts in the driving seat

From 1 May 2026, China’s revised Maritime Code gives Chinese law a much stronger role in contracts of carriage linked to Chinese ports. Where the port of loading or discharge is in China, Chinese courts can apply Chapter IV of the Code to carriage contracts even if the bill of lading or sea freight agreement points to English law.

Law firm HFW has called this a “substantive change”, noting that “chapter four of the Chinese Maritime Code will apply to a contract of carriage regardless of whether or not another law has been incorporated or chosen by the parties”. In effect, if governing‑law and jurisdiction clauses are unclear, Chinese courts now have more room to assert jurisdiction over disputes involving cargo moving through their ports.

Trading agreements often choose English law and London arbitration, while the carrier’s bill of lading may point a different way. The question is whether, in a dispute, a Chinese court will treat the bill of lading as the main contract and apply Chinese law, despite what the trade agreement says.

Some industry experts see this as part of a broader strategic move, to encourage a switch from FOB to CIF terms so that Chinese exporters control freight, insurance and crucially litigation on home turf.

However, any FOB to CIF shift is commercial, not legal, and Incoterms are an international standard which means that FOB remains fully available for China–UK trade, where the buyer wants to control the main–carriage contract and freight costs.

So, China’s legal changes don’t cancel FOB, and UK buyers can still insist on FOB terms and book their own freight, provided the contracts and practical behaviour match that intention.

Supply chain security rules: due diligence under pressure

Alongside the maritime reforms, China has introduced its first comprehensive Regulations on Industrial and Supply Chain Security, effective 31 March 2026. These rules treat supply chains as part of national security rather than a purely commercial matter, bringing them under the oversight of economic, security and cyber authorities.

The most sensitive provision for Western companies is Article 13, which restricts “information gathering activities” related to industrial and supply chains where these are found to breach Chinese law. The language is broad and undefined, creating uncertainty about whether standard due‑diligence activities, which can include supplier questionnaires, ESG audits, human‑rights assessments or on‑site inspections, could fall within the scope.

This sits uneasily alongside emerging Western rules such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and US forced‑labour legislation, which expect companies to map supply chains and scrutinise suppliers in detail. Legal commentators warn that “the new law creates a direct and unresolved conflict between Chinese law and Western due diligence obligations”, with companies potentially facing legal risk in China for work they are required to do under EU or US law.

The regulations also give authorities wide powers to respond to perceived threats to supply‑chain stability. Investigations can target foreign organisations and individuals where there is a “risk or threat” of harm, not just proven damage, and can lead to restrictions on trade, investment and cooperation in China, along with travel or work limits for individuals.

Counter‑measures against foreign sanctions

A companion set of rules – the Regulations on Countering Foreign Improper/Unjustifiable Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, in force from early April – strengthens China’s ability to push back against foreign sanctions, export controls and data‑disclosure demands applied extraterritorially.

These sit alongside the Anti‑Foreign Sanctions Law, blocking rules and the “unreliable entities” regime, creating what one firm describes as an “integrated counter‑sanctions system”. Authorities can investigate and penalise organisations and individuals who implement or even “promote” foreign measures seen as discriminatory towards China, with tools ranging from import and export restrictions to asset seizures and visa bans.

This framework has emerged against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tension, including Western tariffs and probes into China’s exports, secondary‑sanctions risks around Iran and disputes over strategic assets like the Panama Canal.

What shippers should do

None of this means that trading with China will suddenly stop or that every UK shipper is about to be investigated. But the risk environment has clearly changed, and it is worth taking some practical steps:

  • Check bills of lading, trade agreements and framework contracts to see where Chinese ports are involved, what law and jurisdiction are specified.
    Strengthen English‑law and arbitration provisions and clarify that higher‑tier agreements take precedence.
  • Talk to your insurers about how the revised Maritime Code might affect liability, claims handling and cover for China‑linked moves.
    Consider obtaining Chinese‑law input on key routes or contracts where your exposure is greatest.
  • Map which parts of your ESG and human‑rights due diligence involve Chinese suppliers or sites.
  • For higher‑risk work, such as auditing sensitive regions or investigations linked to sanctions, seek specialist advice on how to stay compliant with both Western obligations and Chinese restrictions.
  • Be mindful of public statements about “decoupling from China” or “boycotting” particular regions. These may be read as aligning with foreign measures and may increase regulatory attention in China.
  • Align messaging between compliance, procurement and communications so that necessary changes to your supply chain are framed around resilience, quality and legal compliance, not politics.

For Metro’s customers, the key takeaway is that China is now using law as an active tool of supply‑chain strategy. Understanding how these new rules work, and adjusting contracts, due‑diligence programmes and communication strategies accordingly, will help keep goods moving while managing a more complex risk landscape.

If you have questions or concerns about any of the developments outlined here EMAIL our Managing Director, Andrew Smith.

EU UK negotiations 2

UK–EU reset could ease border friction for importers and exporters

May 13, 2026 | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On 13 May 2026, the King's Speech set out the government's plans for the next Parliamentary session, including efforts to reset post-Brexit relations, forge closer economic ties with the EU and reduce unnecessary barriers to trade.

The reset is not a return to the single market or customs union. Instead, it is being presented as a targeted attempt to stabilise the trading relationship through closer alignment in specific areas where the government believes reduced friction could support growth, cut costs and improve supply chain efficiency. 

SPS alignment could simplify GB–EU border processes

The government intends to pass legislation by the end of 2026 to enable an SPS agreement with the EU to take effect by mid-2027. The agreement would cover animal and plant health, food safety and related agri-food rules, with the UK aligning to relevant EU legislation in order to ease border procedures.

SPS controls have been among the most disruptive post-Brexit trade barriers, creating additional documentation, inspection, certification and timing challenges at the GB–EU border.

A veterinary-style agreement could reduce the need for some routine checks and help make border movements more predictable. For exporters, this may improve access into EU markets. For importers, it could reduce delays, compliance costs and uncertainty when bringing goods into Great Britain.

Emissions trading alignment could reshape supply chain costs

Alongside the SPS agreement, the government is also negotiating closer alignment between the UK and EU emissions trading schemes (ETS), designed to reduce regulatory divergence and support longer-term industrial and energy cooperation. 

For businesses involved in manufacturing, energy-intensive production, transport and international trade, the implications could extend well beyond environmental policy.

A linked or more closely aligned ETS framework could help reduce friction for exporters trading into Europe, particularly as the EU continues expanding carbon-related trade measures and compliance requirements. It may also provide greater long-term certainty for businesses operating across both UK and EU markets.

Dynamic alignment brings certainty but also new compliance considerations

The proposed reset relies on dynamic alignment in selected areas, meaning UK rules would keep pace with relevant EU law as it evolves. This is central to the government’s ambition to reduce border friction, because smoother trade processes depend on both sides recognising equivalent standards.

For logistics and supply chain teams, this could provide greater medium-term certainty over the regulatory framework affecting GB–EU trade. However, it also means businesses will need to monitor changes in EU rules that may flow into UK requirements over time.

The wider political debate remains active. Critics argue that dynamic alignment could reduce UK regulatory flexibility, while others want the government to go further and pursue a customs union. 

What this means for UK traders

The direction of travel may point toward a less burdensome GB–EU trading environment, but the more realistic reading is:

  • Customs declarations are not going away simply because an SPS deal is agreed.
  • Rules of origin issues are not being removed by the reset as described in this briefing.
  • What may improve is the regulatory layer sitting on top of customs processes for certain categories of goods, especially agri-food.

That distinction matters, because a truck can still need customs processing even if SPS checks become lighter or less frequent.

So the likely benefit is not “no border”, but a border with fewer SPS-related interruptions, fewer compliance mismatches and a lower chance that a shipment is delayed because UK and EU technical rules have drifted apart.

Importers and exporters should now review where SPS controls, border checks, certification or documentary requirements are creating cost, delay or uncertainty in their supply chains. They should also assess whether current customs and compliance processes are flexible enough to adapt as the UK–EU framework develops.

As the UK–EU reset develops, Metro is helping customers assess how changing customs procedures, SPS requirements and evolving regulatory alignment could affect their supply chains, transit times and compliance obligations. 

Through integrated freight forwarding, customs support and cross-border logistics expertise, Metro helps businesses prepare for changing GB–EU trade conditions and maintain efficient cargo flow across European supply chains.

EMAIL Managing Director, Andrew Smith, today to learn more.

Hormuz satellite

Middle East disruption continues as Metro scales contingency solutions

Apr 29, 2026 | , , , , , , , , ,

The extension of the US–Iran ceasefire has done little to stabilise operating conditions in the region, with last week’s seizure of two MSC-managed container vessels by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the Strait of Hormuz. 

The incident highlight the ongoing risk to commercial shipping and reinforces the reality that access through Hormuz remains severely constrained, with container flows through the Strait largely suspended.

Land-bridge solutions under pressure as demand surges

As traditional shipping routes have been disrupted, supply chains have shifted rapidly towards alternative solutions, particularly land-bridge routes across the Gulf.

However, these corridors are now under significant strain. Demand for trucking capacity has surged well beyond available supply, with rates on key lanes such as Jeddah to the UAE rising four to five times above pre-conflict levels.

Jeddah has become the primary gateway following security concerns at Khor Fakkan and Salalah, concentrating volumes into a single entry point and creating further bottlenecks. In some cases, demand for road capacity has reached multiples of available supply, driving sharp price escalation and limiting flexibility for shippers.

Operational disruption now outweighs capacity availability

One of the defining characteristics of the current market is that disruption is being driven less by a lack of physical assets and more by how networks are operating.

Ocean carriers are navigating around both the Red Sea and Hormuz, adding 15–20% to voyage distances, increasing fuel consumption and reducing effective capacity. At the same time, global port congestion has exceeded 3 million TEU, further impacting reliability. 

Airfreight networks are also adjusting to restricted airspace and reduced Gulf capacity, while road freight is absorbing increased volumes through regional corridors, adding complexity and extending transit times.

The result is a market where capacity exists, but is harder to access, less predictable and more expensive to deploy.

Pricing volatility accelerates as fuel and disruption outpace contracts

Freight pricing is struggling to keep pace with the speed of change.

Across ocean freight, emergency bunker surcharges are now widely applied, while traditional fuel adjustment mechanisms lag behind real-time cost increases. In airfreight, fuel surcharges are being revised more frequently as jet fuel prices continue to rise. In road freight, fuels costs typically represent over 30% of operator costs, placing short-term pressure on carriers and increasing the likelihood of further cost pass-through. 

The situation is further complicated by simultaneous pressure across multiple global chokepoints.

Disruption linked to the Strait of Hormuz is occurring alongside continued Red Sea instability and wider geopolitical friction across key corridors. This has created a structurally higher-risk operating environment, where any escalation can quickly remove capacity, extend transit times and increase costs across all modes. 

Scaling solutions to maintain cargo flow

In response, Metro has significantly increased its operational focus on the region, with time dedicated to resolving Middle East-linked problems rising by more than 1000%.

The focus is on execution: ensuring cargo continues to move and that shipments already in transit are delivered using the most effective available solution.

Metro is actively supporting customers through:

  • Dynamic re-routing of in-transit cargo, avoiding disruption hotspots
  • Alternative gateway strategies, identifying viable entry points outside high-risk zones
  • Airfreight deployment, where speed and reliability are critical
  • Land-bridge and multimodal solutions, maintaining flow where ocean routes are constrained

This flexible, hands-on approach is essential in a market where conditions are changing rapidly and pre-planned routes are no longer sufficient.

If you have cargo moving to, from or through the Middle East, or shipments currently held en route, Metro can help you identify and implement the most effective resolutions.

EMAIL Managing Director, Andrew Smith, today to secure capacity, protect transit times and keep your supply chain moving in a rapidly changing environment.

refinery

Fuel shocks across ocean, air and road freight

Apr 29, 2026 | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed, crude oil can still exist within the region, but refined products, which includes marine fuel, jet fuel and diesel, can no longer move freely to key consumption markets, which has triggered a sharp divergence in pricing and availability across all modes. 

For shippers, this creates a higher cost floor, as transport fuels are no longer moving in line with crude. Marine bunker, jet fuel and diesel each have their own supply chains and crack spreads (the margin between crude and refined products), and are now behaving independently of Brent. This is driving bunker-led cost pressure in ocean, jet fuel-driven inflation in air, and diesel-driven cost escalation in road. 

Ocean freight: bunker costs reset the pricing floor

In ocean freight, bunker fuel has become the dominant cost driver. Asian fuel hubs, particularly Singapore, are experiencing significant pressure as rerouted vessels increase demand while supply remains constrained.

This has created a disconnect between traditional pricing mechanisms and real-time costs. 

Emergency bunker surcharges are being applied across major trade lanes, while standard adjustment factors lag behind market conditions and may only catch up with current fuel inflation later in the year.

The result is a structurally higher cost base, with ocean rates now reflecting fuel volatility rather than underlying demand alone. 

Air freight: jet fuel shortage tightens capacity

Air freight is facing the most acute fuel-driven pressure. Gulf refineries, which typically supply jet fuel to Europe and Asia, are unable to export at normal levels, creating a shortage of refined product.

This has driven a sharp increase in jet fuel prices, with crack spreads widening dramatically from around $16 per barrel pre-crisis to approximately $100 in some regions. 

This regional price divergence means that Asia and Middle East jet fuel benchmarks sit substantially above North American levels, meaning that every kilo of freight uplifted is starting from a materially higher fuel cost base. 

As a result, airlines are adjusting networks, reducing marginal capacity and prioritising fuel efficiency, tightening available uplift and sustaining elevated airfreight rates.

Road freight: diesel inflation feeds through to transport costs

Road freight is also seeing significant cost pressure, with diesel prices rising independently of crude due to refinery constraints and regional supply dynamics.

Fuel accounts for roughly 30% of total truck operating costs, meaning sustained diesel inflation is already feeding through into pricing. 

At the same time, increased reliance on overland routes across the Middle East is adding further demand pressure, compounding both cost and capacity challenges.

What this means for shippers

  • Expect fuel-driven cost volatility across all modes
  • Plan for longer and less predictable transit times
  • Build flexibility into routing and inventory strategies
  • Monitor surcharge mechanisms

Fuel disruption, routing constraints and capacity pressure are now closely linked. Managing one without the others is no longer effective.

Metro works with customers to model alternative routes, balance mode selection and manage cost exposure in real time. If you are seeing rising costs, delays or uncertainty in your supply chain, EMAIL managing director, Andrew Smith, to secure the most effective solution for your cargo.

Category: Exports

4PL | Chemical | Exports | Foodstuffs | International Trade | Middle East | News | Road | Sea | Supply Chain

Latest News in this category