Incoterms 2020 for Bags: What Changed and What Still Applies

What Are the Incoterms Rules and Who Publishes Them?

They are a set of eleven three-letter trade terms published by the International Chamber of Commerce, the current edition being Incoterms 2020. Each rule allocates between seller and buyer the tasks, costs and risks of delivering goods, and each is expressed as two parallel obligation tables — A for the seller, B for the buyer — across ten article headings.

They are contractual rather than statutory: they apply because the parties wrote them into the contract, and they apply in the version the contract names. That last sentence is the one that matters commercially, because a contract that says "FOB Xiamen" without a version is a contract with an argument waiting inside it.

What Changed in 2020?

Five things worth knowing. The insurance level required under CIF and CIP was raised. DAT was renamed DPU to make clear that the seller delivers and unloads at a named place. FCA gained an option under which the buyer may instruct the carrier to issue an on-board bill of lading to the seller. Security requirements and their costs were allocated explicitly rather than left to be inferred. And the obligation tables were presented side by side for reading.

Two further qualifications belong on the 2020 revision, because they are the ones that catch programmes with older templates. The rules now contemplate the parties using their own means of transport rather than a third-party carrier under FCA, FAS and FOB, which matters for a buyer collecting with its own vehicle. And the ten article headings were rearranged so the obligation tables read side by side, which changes where a clause is found without changing what it says.

There were smaller changes as well: the rules now contemplate the parties using their own means of transport rather than a third-party carrier under FCA, FAS and FOB, and the cost articles were rewritten to make explicit who bears what. None of these moved a delivery point.

What Did Not Change and Still Applies?

The delivery points, and therefore the risk transfer points, are unchanged across the whole set. FOB still delivers on board, CIF still delivers on board, DDP still delivers at the named place cleared for import, EXW still delivers at availability. A buyer who learned the risk boundaries under an earlier edition has not been misled.

A third thing that did not change is worth stating because it is the most common source of disappointment: the rules do not make anybody competent. A term that obliges the seller to handle import formalities does not oblige the seller to be good at them, and a buyer that chose DDP to avoid learning about entry has exchanged a cost for a dependency rather than solving anything.

What also did not change is the structure of the thing: an Incoterm allocates cost and risk and nothing else. It still does not transfer title, still does not govern the law of the contract, still does not decide when payment is due, and still does not excuse either party from the documentation their own jurisdiction requires.

Which Rules Are Maritime and Which Are Any Mode?

Four rules apply only to sea and inland waterway transport: FAS, FOB, CFR and CIF. The other seven — EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAP, DPU and DDP — apply to any mode, including more than one mode. That classification matters because the maritime rules transfer risk on board, which is a moment that does not exist in road, rail or air carriage.

Each of the eleven also carries a second classification that buyers mix up with the first: whether the seller delivers before the main carriage, at the point of carriage, or after arrival. The E, F, C and D groupings describe exactly that, and they are the fastest way to see how much of the journey the seller is responsible for without reading the tables.

The practical error is using FOB for a container that is handed over at a terminal days before loading, or for an air shipment. It is not unlawful — the parties can agree whatever they want — but it creates a gap between the moment the buyer lost practical control of the goods and the moment the rule says risk transferred. FCA closes that gap.

Why Does the Version Matter in a Contract?

Because the rules are revised, and the revision changed an obligation that costs money. A contract written in 2018 saying CIF and relying on the then-default insurance level now provides, or fails to provide, a different level of cover than the drafter intended. Where a documentary credit or a standard template is involved, the wording may not have been touched since.

There is a fourth consequence of the version question that is specific to programmes with a letter of credit. The ICC UCP 600 rules on documentary credits are examined strictly, and a CIF presentation that shows Clauses (C) where the contract called for Clauses (A) is a discrepancy. That is a commercial failure produced entirely by a version reference nobody updated.

The remedy is one clause. Name the version: "FOB Xiamen, Incoterms 2020". Six words remove the ambiguity, and they cost nothing. A contract that names no version is a contract in which two parties may be reading two different editions of the same rule.

What Should the Contract Say?

Four things in one sentence: the rule, the named place, the version, and where relevant the exception the parties have agreed. "CIF Rotterdam, Incoterms 2020, insurance at Institute Cargo Clauses (A) at invoice value plus 20 percent" is a complete statement of the insurance position; "CIF Rotterdam" is a statement that leaves two questions open.

Where the parties want to depart from the default, say so in the same sentence rather than in a separate email. The rules contemplate departure — the CIF insurance level is expressly subject to agreement otherwise — but a departure that is not written into the contract is not a departure at all.

What Are the Most Common Misuses?

Five. Using a maritime rule for containerised or air cargo, where FCA fits better. Assuming the rule transfers title, which it does not. Naming a country instead of a named place, which makes the delivery point unenforceable. Using DDP where the seller cannot complete import formalities in the destination country. And assuming EXW includes loading, which it does not.

Two of the five deserve a sentence more because they are the ones that produce an insurance claim rather than an awkward conversation. Assuming title transfers leaves a buyer uninsured over a period it believed was covered. And assuming EXW includes loading leaves a buyer bearing a loss during handling it did not instruct and could not supervise. Both are one-line clauses.

A sixth misuse deserves adding because it is specific to programmes that grew: using the same term for every destination. A buyer that started with one warehouse on DDP and now ships to four countries is applying a term chosen for the first destination to three it was never suited to. The term belongs in the destination file, not only in the master template.

The fifth of those is the most expensive because it is the most common, and the fourth is the most serious because it can make the term impossible to perform. Where the seller has no way to be the importer of record at destination, DDP should be replaced with DAP and the buyer should handle the entry.

How Do You Check Which Version Applies?

Read the contract, then read the purchase order, then read the template the purchase order was generated from. Version references tend to live in the template and disappear in the order, and where the two disagree the contract governs. Where neither says anything, the parties are arguing about which edition applies rather than about what happened.

The check has a second step that is worth doing once and keeping: search the templates for the word CIF and for any clause that mentions insurance, then read each one against the 2020 default. Most programmes find at least one clause that says Clauses (C) because it was written years ago, and that clause now provides less cover than the rule requires by default.

Where the answer is that the contract is silent and the order is silent, the practical resolution is to re-paper rather than to argue: send a short amendment naming the version and ask for it to be acknowledged. It is a one-line email that converts an ambiguity into an agreement, and it is faster than establishing which edition the parties were each reading.

For a programme this is a one-hour exercise: open every template, add the version to every term clause, and check that the insurance and delivery clauses still say what you think they say. Doing it once prevents a version argument on every shipment for years.

Does the Version Change the Risk Point?

No, and this is the answer most buyers want. Every rule in the 2020 set delivers where it delivered in the previous set, which means every risk transfer point is where it was. What changed is the obligations around the delivery point, above all the insurance level and the security costs.

One more item belongs in the review, and it is the one that produces the largest saving for the smallest effort: check whether the named place is still correct. Programmes move warehouses, add destinations and change fulfilment providers, and a template that still names a port or an address nobody uses is a template that is silently wrong on every shipment until somebody notices.

The practical consequence of that exception is narrow but real: a programme that used DAT for delivery to a warehouse or an inland point will find DPU describes what it was already doing more accurately, and should update the wording when it next reviews the template. Nothing about the risk position changes, and the delivery is still after unloading.

The exception worth noting is DPU, which is not a new rule but a renamed and slightly clarified one. DAT delivered at a terminal; DPU delivers at a place, unloaded. A template that used DAT for a delivery to a warehouse rather than a terminal will read more accurately under DPU, but the risk point has not moved.

What Should a Bag Programme Write Into Its Template?

Six clauses, and they are all short. The rule and version. The named place. The insurance level and value where insurance is required. The importer of record. The declared value basis and document set. And the rollover clause. Six lines, one page, and every shipment afterwards starts from an agreed position rather than from a negotiation.

Two clauses in that template deserve a note because they are the ones usually missing. The rollover clause, which decides who pays storage and who rebooks when a container misses its sailing. And the declared-value clause, which decides what figure the entry is filed against. Both are one-liners and both are arguments if they are absent.

Then review it once a year, or whenever the order profile changes shape — moving from consolidation to full container, adding a destination, or bringing entry in-house. The right term at 500 pcs is frequently the wrong term at a full container, and the template is where that change should be recorded rather than improvised.

Freight bands and transit windows in this cluster are planning ranges drawn from quoted lots, not published tariff rates. They move with bunker cost, vessel rotation, port congestion and the week you book; ask for a live quotation against your sailing before you commit the order to a calendar.

Frequently Asked Questions

People Also Ask