French ocean carrier CMA CGM has announced fresh peak season surcharges (PSS), effective from 1 October until 31 December, from the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean.
The largest PSS will be applied from the US East Coast (New York, Baltimore, Savannah, Charleston and Port Everglades) to Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Aruba, Barbados, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Curacao, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saba, St Eustatius, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Tortola and Trinidad & Tobago.
The PSS will be US$125 per 20' dry and reefer and US$250 per 40' dry & reefer for all types of containers except flat and open top boxes.
In the same period, CMA CGM will implement another surcharge from the port of Oakland to Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. The PSS will be US$25 per 20' dry and reefer and US$50 per 40' dry and reefer for all types of containers except flat and open top boxes.
Last but not least, the Marseille-based liner operator announced a PSS of US$50 per 20' dry and reefer and US$100 per 40' dry and reefer for the same types of boxes and for the same period from the port of Houston to Guatemala and Honduras.
As global supply chains continue to shift and the air cargo industry enters a new phase of post-pandemic restructuring, Southeast Asia is increasingly positioned as a strategic air logistics hub on the global map
After two hot years driven by e-commerce and disruption in sea freight, the air-cargo market in 2025 is slowing as supply and demand gradually normalize, belly-capacity (passenger-aircraft freight space) recovers and trade policies fluctuate. For Vietnamese companies exporting high-value goods, this is the time to re-calculate the “sea-air mix” to optimize cost, time and shipment certainty.
From January 1, 2025, the FuelEU Maritime regulation officially takes effect, requiring ships to reduce their “well-to-wake” greenhouse gas intensity by 2% compared to the 2020 baseline, with targets rising progressively until 2050. As a result, “green” costs—including scarce alternative fuels, compliance fees, verification expenses, and carbon-related surcharges—are now clearly reflected in the invoices issued by carriers and shippers. FuelEU does not mandate the use of any specific fuel. Instead, it allows operators to choose the optimal combination of solutions—such as blended biofuels, LNG/bio-LNG, wind-assisted propulsion, or operational optimization—as long as the required emission intensity is achieved. In practice, on major European trade lanes, many carriers have already begun introducing separate “Green Compliance Surcharges” rather than incorporating all environmental costs into traditional bunker surcharges.
We wish our valued customers and partners a joyful and happy holiday.
On 23 December 2015, Glotrans Da Nang was officially established under the strategic direction of Glotrans Vietnam, marking an important milestone in expanding our nationwide network across Central Vietnam. From day one, the branch has carried the mission of becoming an efficient logistics gateway, contributing to the enhancement of Glotrans’ nationwide service network.
On the occasion of Vietnamese Teachers’ Day 20/11, Glotrans Vietnam would like to extend our warmest and most respectful greetings to all teachers, trainers, and everyone who tirelessly dedicates themselves to the mission of imparting knowledge.
The shipment of food additives was transported in container No. FCIU3301688 (20’), under B/L MPRSMUM1806, on the voyage from Nhavasheva Port (India) to Dinh Vu Port (Hai Phong, Vietnam) on 29/04/2017.
Company T (Plaintiff – the Insured) entered into an insurance contract with Company B (Defendant – the Insurer). After the insured event occurred, the Insurer alleged that the Insured had violated its obligation to prevent and mitigate losses. The Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged that such an obligation exists but concluded that the Insured did not breach it.
Under the insurance contract, the premium was to be paid in three installments, and in all three, the insured party was late in payment. When a dispute arose, the insurer (Defendant) argued that the insurance contract had terminated before the insured event occurred due to the late premium payment and therefore refused to make an insurance payout. However, the Arbitral Tribunal held a contrary view.
