When ocean freight invoices arrive with unexpected spikes, empty container repositioning fees are often the culprits hiding in plain sight. These charges, which are levied when transportation providers move empty containers from one port or depot to another, can be legitimate. But they’re also frequently misapplied, miscategorized, or completely avoidable depending on your contractual terms and shipment profile.
If you’re not auditing for them specifically, you’re likely absorbing costs that should’ve been flagged, challenged, or negotiated upfront.
What are empty container repositioning fees?
In global logistics, the demand for full containers isn’t evenly distributed. After cargo is delivered, containers are often stranded in locations with minimal exports. To rebalance supply, transportation providers move them (often across regions or continents) to meet demand. This repositioning is operationally necessary, but the associated costs can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars per container.
Many transportation providers treat these charges as accessorials, slipping them into invoices with minimal line-item clarity. That’s where the risk begins.
Why this charge is often misapplied
Empty container repositioning fees are not standardized. They vary by lane, transportation provider, container type, and geography, and are typically subject to pre-negotiation. In some cases, transportation providers apply repositioning charges to shippers even when the repositioning benefits the transportation provider’s own network rather than the shipper’s shipment.
Without lane-level intelligence or contractual context, shippers may assume the charge is valid when it’s not. And because many transportation management systems don’t segment this fee for automated validation, it’s left to manual review, if it’s reviewed at all.
Audit strategies to catch hidden repositioning charges
A generic freight audit will flag rate mismatches, but it won’t necessarily catch miscategorized accessorials. To capture unnecessary container repositioning charges, your audit process should include:
- Transportation provider-specific fee tables: Reference each transportation provider’s tariff or negotiated surcharge schedule. Charges outside of those terms should be auto-flagged.
- Route logic audits: Was the container drop-off location aligned with the port or rail terminal agreed upon? Did repositioning benefit the transportation provider’s broader network rather than your supply chain?
- Historical charge analysis: Are repositioning fees only appearing from one provider, one port, or one facility? These patterns may indicate a systemic billing issue or a negotiation gap.
With nVision Global’s freight audit and payment services, you can configure invoice checks that don’t just verify costs but identify where and why exceptions occur, enabling upstream corrections and potential disputes.
From disputes to process improvements
Audit flags are useful, but root cause analysis is the bigger value. If one port consistently triggers repositioning charges, maybe container return procedures need to be clarified. If a specific transportation provider’s billing team frequently assigns repositioning surcharges, that may require escalated contract compliance discussions.
Avoid the cycle of catching the same error over and over. Instead, use audit intelligence to fix it before it happens again.
Integrate repositioning into audit logic
Empty container repositioning fees reflect real logistics dynamics, but they’re not your responsibility by default. By embedding container-specific accessorial logic into your freight auditing workflows, you can protect your bottom line while holding providers accountable to your agreements.