Demurrage and detention charges disputed: Samsung seeks $186 million from CMA CGM at the FMC

WEDNESDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2026

Samsung Electronics America has filed a claim of at least $186 million with the US Federal Maritime Commission against CMA CGM over the handling of inland deliveries and accessorial charges between 2020 and 2023.

Demurrage and detention charges disputed for at least $186 million: that is the stake of the complaint Samsung Electronics America has filed with the US Federal Maritime Commission against CMA CGM, accused of a series of breaches of the American Shipping Act. At the core of the dispute is the way the French carrier allegedly handled inland deliveries, demurrage and detention billing and cargo release procedures between 2020 and 2023.

The case before the Federal Maritime Commission

The electronics group argues that the costs generated by the service failures of the pandemic years were passed on to the customer, even though inland transport was contractually the carrier's responsibility. According to the complaint, CMA CGM justified the delays with port congestion and a shortage of road chassis and rail capacity, while continuing to invoice demurrage, detention and rail storage. Samsung sent a formal demand in July 2024, followed by a tolling agreement suspending the limitation periods.

The numbers behind the claim

• $186 million: minimum total amount sought in the complaint filed with the FMC
• about $148 million: charges Samsung considers unlawful, relating to the 2020-2023 period
• $8.1 million: expenses the company incurred to cope with the operational problems
• about $30 million: interest accrued on the disputed amounts
• more than 121,000 individual charges for demurrage, detention and rail storage during the disputed period

That figure of 121,000 charges says more than any adjective: the dispute does not stem from a single contested invoice but from a mass of accessorial lines built up over three years of operations.

Store door and the inland liability question

The legal core of the case is the store door service, in which the ocean carrier undertakes to move the container from the discharge port to its final inland destination, arranging rail and truck legs. According to Samsung, from 2020 this service performed in a systematically inadequate way, yet the chain of accessorial charges kept firing as if the delay were attributable to the receiver. That is where the real contest lies: how far can a carrier selling a door to door leg push onto the shipper the cost of a breakdown in the inland phase it manages itself.

Finance holds and account suspensions

The other chapter of the complaint concerns commercial pressure tools. Samsung challenges the use of so-called finance holds and account suspensions: levers that, the company says, were used to secure payment of already disputed demurrage invoices, going as far as halting import shipments not directly connected to the dispute. The group states it attempted a negotiated solution through meetings in 2025 and 2026, without the request to refund the amounts being addressed on the merits.

Demurrage and detention charges disputed: what it means for importers

For an Italian importer the case is not an American curiosity. The mechanism is identical on any trade lane: if the service contract provides for door delivery, the risk of port congestion, chassis unavailability or missing rail slots stays with the carrier, but accessorial invoicing is automatic and lands downstream, often months later, in thousands of lines that are hard to reconcile. The figure worth pausing on is exactly the more than 121,000 individual charges: no accounting function disputes 121,000 lines one by one without a structured process. The cost is not only the amount, it is the time needed to prove the delay was not caused by the party receiving the cargo.

One piece of context should be added: the FMC has already handled similar challenges to the demurrage and detention practices of major carriers, and in 2024 CMA CGM itself paid $1,975,000 to settle a proceeding over an overly broad definition of «merchant» in the bill of lading, which the FMC said led to invoicing parties that should not have been billed. In the same round the FMC collected more than $2.3 million from three companies. The issue, then, is not an isolated incident but a recurring friction point between shippers and shipping lines.

Contract clauses worth reviewing with carriers

• store door scope: who answers for delays on the rail or road leg, and with which exceptions
• free time and suspension: counted from discharge date or from the date the container is actually available for pick-up
• dispute procedure: deadline to file a claim, documentation required, suspensive effect on payment
• no cross-blocking: no account suspension or cargo release hold for invoices under formal dispute

The operational advice only looks obvious: keep orderly evidence of the delay, from terminal notifications to carrier messages about missing equipment, and reconcile accessorials monthly rather than at year end. The sums at stake in the Samsung proceeding are out of scale for an average importer, but the defensive logic is the same: without a contemporaneous documentary trail, a detention invoice becomes practically unassailable.

The proceeding before the FMC, if it reaches a hearing on the merits, could clarify how far carrier liability extends when a door to door shipment stalls in the final inland mile. That clarification matters to anyone buying door to door transport, even far away from US ports.

With La Merce, disputing demurrage and detention does not start after the invoice but before: we read the service contract clauses on door delivery and port congestion risk, which are precisely where 121,000 charges are decided.

Let's talk about your productprojectconceptgoalbrandproductprojectconceptgoalbrandproductprojectconceptgoalbrandproduct