THE ABANDONMENT OF GOODS IN CONTAINERS UNDER SPANISH LAW: CUSTOMS AND MARITIME FRAMEWORK, OPERATIVE SOLUTIONS AND JURISPRUDENTIAL STANDARDS

1. Introduction

The abandonment of goods due to the consignee’s failure to collect them constitutes one of the most frequent problems in international maritime transport. It generates significant costs for carriers—such as warehousing, demurrage and eventual destruction of the cargo—and raises complex legal questions concerning standing, disposal procedures and distribution of liabilities.

When goods arrive at the destination port and the consignee designated in the bill of lading fails to collect them, a regulatory and contractual framework is activated which combines port practices, customs mechanisms and powers recognised in maritime transport. This situation places the carrier at the centre of conflict management, obliged to decide whether to bear the costs or seek to pass them on to shippers, consignees or third party intermediaries.

This article analyses the applicable legal regime, its operational solutions and jurisprudential standards, offering a practical perspective for shipping lines, freight forwarders and other operators in the sector.

2. Spanish and Community legal framework for the abandonment of goods in containers

The abandonment of goods constitutes a key institution in the customs sphere, as it enables the Administration to dispose of cargo which the consignee fails to collect at destination. Its regulation combines a national regime with more than seventy years in force and a harmonised Community framework, whose coordination proves essential for international trade operators.

2.1. National legislation

The institution is regulated in the Decree of 17 October 1947, which approved the consolidated and amended text of the General Customs Revenue Ordinances (hereinafter, the “1947 Customs Ordinances”). Specifically, Article 316 thereof defines abandonment as the renunciation of ownership made by the consignee, distinguishing between express abandonment—when a written renunciation is submitted—and abandonment in fact—when the interested party’s conduct evidences the intention not to collect the goods, for example by allowing storage periods to expire or failing to pay duties and charges.

Likewise, Article 317 of the aforementioned Ordinances permits abandonment to be declared at any moment before payment of duties, exempting from these but not from fines or surcharges. For its part, Article 319 of the said Ordinances regulates the procedure: opening of proceedings, examination and resolution by the Customs Administrator, with notification to the interested party or, failing that, publication in the Official Provincial Bulletin. Similarly, Article 320 of the aforementioned Ordinances establishes the economic consequences: the Treasury seizes the goods and sells them at auction, applying the proceeds to duties, fines, warehousing costs and, notably, to freight and other transport charges, with any surplus being paid into the Treasury.

Equally, Article 240 of the said Ordinances establishes a specific regime for free zones, with inventory, publicity and auction adapted to those areas. Subsequent legislation reaffirmed the scheme: Royal Decree 511/1977, of 18 February, approving the consolidated text of taxes forming part of Customs Revenue, consolidated the exonerating effect, and Royal Decree 2095/1986, of 25 September, concerning Amendment of the Customs Ordinances introduced the requirement to request abandonment or destruction before release, exempting from import duties but not from sanctions, save for travellers.

2.2. Regulation under European Union Law

At Community level, the regulation is contained in Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (UCC). Articles 198 to 200 thereof empower the customs authorities to dispose of goods by sale or destruction, to recognise renunciation in favour of the State by the holder of the goods or of the procedure, and to authorise the Commission to adopt implementing rules.

This scheme is completed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (hereinafter the “Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447”), which develops Articles 198 and 199 of the UCC and provides two essential elements:

Firstly, Article 249 of the said Implementing Regulation permits the customs authorities to refuse authorisation for abandonment when goods cannot be sold within the customs territory of the Union or when management costs would be disproportionate in relation to their value. Moreover, it configures a modality of presumed abandonment: if the customs authorities have publicly called upon the owner to come forward and ninety days pass without response, the renunciation is deemed to have been made.

Secondly, Article 250 of the aforementioned Regulation regulates the sale of abandoned goods, requiring that the purchaser immediately comply with the necessary customs formalities. If the sale price includes import duties and other charges, the goods are automatically deemed to have been released for free circulation. The sale is effected according to the internal procedures of each Member State, but the amounts obtained are applied primarily to cover the customs debt and corresponding charges.

The Community framework configures a closed system, in which the satisfaction of private claims—such as freight or transport costs—is excluded from customs priority and must be ventilated in independent civil proceedings.

2.3. Procedure, effects and standing of the maritime carrier

The management of abandonment of goods in containers requires analysis of both the administrative procedure and the specific legal position of the maritime carrier, whose active standing and contractual effects present relevant particularities. Procedurally, abandonment preserves due process guarantees. In accordance with Article 319 of the 1947 Customs Ordinances, proceedings must be opened immediately, with examination of the goods and resolution by the Administrator within a brief period. If the interested party is unknown, the resolution is published in the Official Provincial Bulletin, admitting representations. In the Community sphere, Article 250 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 specifies that sale is only valid if the purchaser immediately performs the customs formalities, configuring a system which links abandonment and release for free circulation.

For the shipping line, active standing proves especially favourable. Firstly, Article 5.34 of the Union Customs Code broadens the concept of holder of the goods, including not only the owner but also whoever holds a right of disposal or physical control. Under this criterion, the maritime carrier may be considered holder until effective delivery to the consignee, which legitimates it to seek abandonment or destruction before AEAT.

This interpretation has been expressly confirmed by recent administrative practice. Information Note 14/2024, of 16 May, of the Customs and Excise Department of the Tax Agency, on destruction of goods which do not infringe intellectual property rights, recognises the maritime carrier as holder whilst effective delivery to the consignee has not occurred. Complementarily, Information Note 06/2025, of 19 February, on destruction of goods infringing intellectual property rights under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, confirms that destruction under customs supervision always constitutes an abandonment in favour of the State, without transfer to interested third parties.

Secondly, Act 14/2014, of 24 July, on Maritime Navigation (hereinafter, “Act 14/2014 on Maritime Navigation” and/or “MNA”), reinforces this position: specifically, Article 237 of the said Act imposes upon the carrier the duty of diligence and communication to the shipper in case of abandonment, and Article 252 of the same provides that the bill of lading performs the function of title of disposal over the goods.

This regulatory coordination, combined with the usual contractual clauses in bills of lading which recognise rights of retention, disposal and eventual sale of cargo to the carrier in case of non-payment of freight or other transport-related charges such as demurrage, confers upon the shipping line a dual standing: as customs holder by virtue of the UCC and as contractual creditor by virtue of the bill of lading. Consequently, the carrier may effectively activate abandonment procedures before AEAT.

Nevertheless, it proves essential to understand that customs abandonment has exclusive effects in the administrative sphere: it transfers ownership to the Public Treasury, but does not extinguish contractual obligations between shipper, consignee and carrier. This delimitation assumes special relevance for shipping lines, as abandonment before the Customs Authority does not, in itself, release from liabilities arising from transport, storage or port handling contracts. Claims for freight, container costs or demurrage must be ventilated in independent civil proceedings, avoiding invoking abandonment as an improper exemption from contractual liabilities, but permitting the carrier to maintain in parallel its civil actions for satisfaction of claims not covered by customs priority.

3. Operational solutions in cases of container abandonment

The management of abandonment of goods carried in containers finds its initial foundation in the bill of lading, which fulfils three essential functions: it is proof of delivery of the goods by the shipper to the carrier, it is title evidencing a claim to restitution of the goods which entitles its lawful holder to demand their delivery at destination, and it is a document representative of the goods in legal commerce.

Together with these legal functions, the bill of lading habitually incorporates contractual clauses which recognise rights of retention, disposal and even sale of the cargo to the carrier in case of non-payment of freight or other transport-related charges. These stipulations constitute the contractual starting point which connects with the operational solutions envisaged both in the customs framework and in Act 14/2014 on Maritime Navigation.

3.1. Under customs legislation (UCC and national legislation)

The contractual clauses of the bill of lading which empower the carrier to retain, dispose of or sell the goods are directly projected into the customs sphere when cargo is abandoned at the destination port. The Union Customs Code and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 offer a closed catalogue of measures which are activated when goods are not collected within the prescribed period:

(i) Re-exportation (Art. 269 UCC): permits returning the goods to the country of origin or sending them to a third country when an interested third party bears the costs to recover the economic value of the cargo.

(ii) Sale at public auction (Art. 250 Implementing Regulation): obliges the purchaser to immediately give the goods a customs-approved treatment. The proceeds are applied primarily to cover the customs debt and charges, confirming that private claims such as freight remain outside customs priority.

(iii) Destruction (Art. 199 UCC): applicable when goods lack commercial value or represent a risk to health or the environment, under customs supervision and at the holder’s expense.

(iv) Abandonment in favour of AEAT (Arts. 198-199 UCC and Art. 249 Implementing Regulation): involves transfer of ownership to the Public Treasury and extinction of the customs debt, though without release from possible sanctions.

As analysed in section 2.3, the carrier’s standing to promote these solutions is based on Article 5.34 UCC and has been confirmed by Information Notes 14/2024 and 06/2025 of AEAT, which recognise the maritime carrier as holder whilst delivery to the consignee has not occurred.

3.2. Under maritime legislation (Act 14/2014 on Maritime Navigation)

The contractual clauses of the bill of lading find a specific legal channel in the procedures envisaged in the MNA when goods are in a state of abandonment. The carrier may activate the following mechanisms:

1. a) Deposit and Sale of Merchandise (Arts. 512-515 MNA): If the consignee does not pay freight or collect the cargo, the carrier may, after notarial demand for payment, request deposit and subsequent sale at public auction or through a specialised entity. The proceeds obtained are applied first to covering deposit and auction costs, then to payment of freight and other claims, and finally to the holder of the goods. When the bill of lading contains a clause of submission to foreign law, the Spanish notary shall require that the designated law expressly empowers the carrier to seek deposit or sale.
2. b) Disposal of Altered or Damaged Goods (Arts. 523-524 MNA): Especially useful for perishable goods or products whose nature prevents prolonged conservation. The carrier may request notarial authorisation to proceed with sale, having first evidenced the state of deterioration by expert report. Sale is conducted at public auction, guaranteeing transparency and reasonable market value.

This procedure fulfils a dual function: economic, by avoiding total loss of the cargo’s value, and legal, by formally legitimating the carrier’s action, exonerating it from liability when acting in accordance with law.

The frequent error consists in delaying the application for deposit, sale or abandonment for months, permitting accumulation of costs generated by abandoned goods (i.e. “Demurrage”, “Detention”, “Storage costs”) which, if finally sought to be claimed judicially, do not always obtain their full recovery, as detailed below in an analysis of the case law.

4. Jurisprudential standards concerning the carrier’s dili­gence in managing abandoned goods

Without prejudice to administrative customs abandonment procedures before AEAT or notarial proceedings envisaged in the MNA, carriers may exercise judicial actions to claim demurrage, warehousing or destruction costs not recovered through those channels. The coexistence of administrative and contractual mechanisms does not exclude the civil or commercial route, which in many instances becomes the necessary complementary channel to make the carrier’s claims effective.

The Supreme Court, in its Judgment No. 260/2018, of 26 April (ECLI:ES:TS:2018:1502), emphasised that a creditor who unjustifiably delays exercise of its rights incurs conduct contrary to good faith, in accordance with Article 7.1 of the Civil Code, and may not benefit from its own inaction. This principle proves especially relevant in the maritime transport sphere, where delay in acting against cargo abandonment conditions the possibility of passing costs on to the shipper or consignee.

The Provincial Court of Alicante, in its Judgment No. 801/2019, of 28 June (ECLI:ES:APA:2019:2114), applied this criterion by rejecting the full passing on of costs generated during almost five months of carrier inactivity. The Court understood that the shipping line had breached its duty to mitigate damage by accumulating disproportionate costs, which prevented proposing reasonable alternatives such as delivery to third parties or sale of the goods.

In similar terms, the Provincial Court of Barcelona, in Judgment No. 512/2025, of 4 April (ECLI:ES:APB:2025:3493), admitted the claim for costs but reduced compensation by 20% upon finding that the carrier had acted belatedly and breached the powers deriving from the bill of lading.

For its part, the Provincial Court of Valencia, in Judgment No. 152/2024, of 4 June (ECLI:ES:APV:2024:1906), concluded that costs arising from administrative delay could not be imputed to private operators, as Customs intervention had broken the causal nexus necessary for their liability.

From this body of judgments there emerges a standard of reinforced diligence: carrier passivity limits or excludes the passing on of costs, unjustified delay may entail proportional reductions in compensation and concurrence of external causes exempts private operators from liability. Early and proportionate action is erected, consequently, as the indispensable condition for sustaining economic claims and preserving the carrier’s contractual and procedural position.

By way of conclusion, it is necessary to point out the lack of a specific procedure in Community customs legislation for cases of goods abandonment. Although the UCC and its Implementing Regulation provide for the possibility of renunciation, sale or destruction, they do not articulate a harmonised procedural channel, referring to the internal legislation of each Member State. This generates fragmentation, legal uncertainty and additional costs for international operators. It would be advisable for the European Union to establish a uniform system, with common periods and rules, which would strengthen legal certainty and port efficiency in a sector as globalised as maritime transport.