An importer may discover that the contents of packages arriving in Saudi Arabia are fewer than the quantity shown on the invoice or shipping documents. Who is responsible: the supplier, carrier or warehouse operator?
Article 54 of the Common Customs Law addresses responsibility when inspection reveals missing package contents, according to their condition on entry into customs storage and the circumstances of the shortage. Entirely missing shipments or missing packages may require consideration of other provisions, the mode of transport and the documents.
Example: 100 devices ordered, only 90 received
Suppose a trader in Jeddah imports a shipment documented as containing 100 electronic devices. Inspection of the packages reveals only 90 devices: a shortage of 10. This hypothetical example illustrates the issues and does not determine any actual case.
A difference in quantity alone does not establish which party must pay for the missing devices. The stage at which the shortage occurred, package condition, receipt and inspection records, and the parties’ contractual relationships must be examined.
1. Intact packages and an established shortage before shipment
Where packages enter customs storage in apparently sound condition and the shortage is established to have occurred in the exporting country before shipment, Article 54 provides for no further pursuit of that shortage. Apparently intact packaging alone does not satisfy both conditions.
If the supplier is shown to have dispatched 90 devices instead of 100, any claim for the shortfall must be assessed under the sale contract, documents and agreements. The customs treatment does not, by itself, settle the importer’s contractual rights.
2. Packages arrive in visibly unsound condition
For packages entering customs storage in visibly unsound condition, Article 54 requires the storage operator and carrier to record that condition on receipt and check weight, contents and quantity. The storage operator must also take the necessary measures to keep them safe. Opened, damaged or apparently tampered packages may be relevant depending on the facts.
Responsibility in this situation rests with the carrier unless the manifest carries a reservation endorsed by customs in the exporting country; the provision then states that pursuit is discontinued. A note that does not meet the statutory description should not automatically be treated as satisfying this exception.
3. Packages enter intact and subsequently become suspect
Where goods enter in apparently sound packages and subsequently become suspect after entry into customs storage, Article 54 places responsibility on the warehouse operator if there is a shortage or substitution.
Discovery while goods are stored does not alone prove that the shortage arose there. Application of this provision requires examination of receipt records, package condition, documents and evidence relating to custody.
Can customs open packages without the importer present?
Article 54 establishes inspection in the presence of the owner or representative, subject to Article 55. In the updated version published by ZATCA, Article 55 permits opening packages without the owner or representative if they decline to attend at the designated time despite notification.
Where necessary, inspection may take place before notification through a committee formed for that purpose by a decision of the Director General, with a record of the inspection findings. Absence of the importer does not, by itself, make an inspection unlawful.
What should the importer do when a shortage is found?
- Request access to the relevant receipt and inspection records through available procedures.
- Compare the commercial invoice, packing list, manifest and transport documents.
- Document package and seal condition, weight, actual quantity and any notes recorded on receipt.
- Review any manifest reservation and the exporting customs endorsement if relying on the Article 54 exception.
- Keep correspondence with the supplier, carrier, storage operator and insurer, if applicable.
- Promptly check the applicable notice and claim requirements and time limits for the relationship and transport mode, and identify the responsible party before claiming.
Does customs responsibility automatically establish a compensation claim?
Responsibility within customs procedures must be distinguished from a claim for the goods’ value or compensation. A financial claim requires examination of the contract, applicable sale, carriage or storage rules, loss and evidence. Article 54 does not resolve those matters alone.
Compensation may be claimed where its legal or contractual basis, the loss and the defendant’s responsibility are established, subject to applicable conditions, exceptions, liability limits and time limits. A shortage alone should not be treated as automatically making a carrier or warehouse liable to compensate.
Why is legal review useful in shipment shortage cases?
Responsibility may depend on the import contract, transport documents, receipt and inspection records, manifest, insurance policy and customs law. Legal review helps organise evidence, identify the appropriate party and procedure, and account for relevant deadlines.
Delays in recording a shortage or appropriate reservations may make later proof harder. Preserve the documents and seek advice on the next step rather than waiting for the parties’ disagreement to be resolved.
Key points
Importing 100 devices and finding only 90 in the packages does not automatically identify who must pay for the missing 10. Package condition, the stage of loss and evidence matter. Compensation requires an assessment beyond the allocation of responsibility within customs procedures.
Azzam Alawwami Law Office | Customs Disputes and Legal Advice
Azzam Saleh Alawwami Law Office provides advice on customs disputes, review of documents and seizure and inspection records, assessment of shipment and import claims, and legal representation before the competent authorities under Saudi law.
Notice: The example is hypothetical and educational. This article provides general information, not individual legal advice or a decision on any case. Final responsibility depends on the documents, facts and applicable laws.