Cargo Shortage and Inventory Discrepancies in Container Shipping: Turkish Case Study, Proof and Strategy (2026)

In container shipping, cargo shortage claims (short landing/incomplete delivery/short unloading) are one of the most contentious types of disputes in practice. The main reason for this is that containers are "sealed boxes": In most shipments, the carrier the sealed container and does not actually count the number of packages inside. When the consignee discovers missing packages upon arrival, their first reflex is to blame the carrier. The carrier, in turn, usually tries to limit responsibility using entries in the bill of lading such as "Said to Contain (STC)" and "Shipper's Load, Stow & Count (SLSC)".

In Turkey, the effective management of these disputes is possible not only with knowledge of "maritime trade law" but also by addressing procedural/technical issues such as the documentation requirements of container logistics , terminal records , customs processes , and the notification, statute of limitations, and liability limits in the Turkish Commercial Code

Below, I explain cargo shortages and counting discrepancies, focusing on the Turkish context, including a concept map, typical scenarios, the legal framework, and evidence strategy.

---

1) What does "cargo shortage" mean? 4 scenarios that are often mistaken for the same thing but lead to different results

In practice, what is referred to as "missing output" is not the same legally or technically:

1. Short shipment: The quantity stated on the bill of lading was not actually loaded at the port of origin.

2. Short landing / shortage at discharge: The container was loaded; however, there was a shortage in the container/delivery chain upon arrival.

3. Pilferage/theft: The container door has been opened, the seal broken, and a part taken from inside (in some cases, the seal is replaced with a "copy").

4. Misdelivery / wrong container: The correct container was not delivered, a different container was given, or there was a mix-up in the terminal/gate records.

This distinction is critical because who you can file a claim against, with what evidence, and within what limits depends on this classification. Especially in short landing/overlanding cases with a customs dimension in Turkey, the question of "where did the deficiency occur?" is often decisive in determining the administration's approach to enforcement.

---

2) Why is it difficult to identify discrepancies in container counts? The "black box" problem and documentation language

2.1 Typical defense of the carrier in FCL/FCL shipments

In FCL (Full Container Load) shipments, the container is usually filled and sealed by the shipper. Since the carrier receives the sealed container, they attempt to limit their responsibility for internal counting and stacking the SLSC (Shipper's Load Stow Control) entry. Judicial decisions often include assessments that if entries such as "Shipper's Load Stow Control / FCL-FCL" exist and the container was delivered sealed by the shipper, the carrier is not obligated to open the container and perform internal stacking/counting checks.

This does not mean that the carrier is “completely blameless” in every case; however, it raises the burden of proof: the party concerned must demonstrate with strong evidence that the shortage occurred within the carrier’s control and/or that the security of the seal was compromised.

2.2 “Said to Contain” (STC) and “Weight/Quantity Unknown” records

In bills of lading, declarations of load and weight are often given with reservations such as "STC", "shipper's load and count", or "weight unknown". These entries:

• the carrier did not actually count the goods,

• that the quantity information is based on the declaration of the shipper,

• the evaluation of evidence in a vote count dispute
  .

Therefore, the statement "the bill of lading says 1,000 cartons" may not be sufficient on its own; proof of loading (packing list, stuffing report, weighing slip, photos/videos, warehouse dispatch slips) and proof of delivery (discharge/terminal/gate records) must be established together.

---

3) Legal framework in Türkiye: Carrier's liability, notification, deadlines and limitations

3.1 Carrier's responsibility: a system based on the period of control (dominance)

According to the Turkish Commercial Code, the carrier is obligated to exercise "the diligence expected of a prudent carrier" during loading, stacking, handling, transportation, protection-supervision, and unloading; and is liable for losses/damages/delays if the loss/damage/delay occurred while the goods were under the carrier's control .

This is the crux of cargo shortage cases: Did the shortage arise during the carrier's period of dominance? If a chain of evidence that answers "yes" to this question cannot be established, the case usually shifts to other key actors such as terminal/road transport/warehouse operators.

3.2 Notification regime: 3-day rule and presumptive risk

The notification rules for goods transported by sea are very practical in resolving inventory discrepancies:

• the loss/damage apparent externally, written notification must be provided at the latest upon delivery.

• Unless otherwise specified, written notification within 3 consecutive days of delivery is sufficient

• If no notification/verification is made, it is presumed that the carrier delivered the goods as stated in the bill of lading and that any subsequent loss/damage is due to a cause for which the carrier is not responsible ; this presumption can be disproven, but the burden of proof is effectively increased.

The missing items inside the container are often "not outwardly apparent," as they only become noticeable upon opening the container. Therefore, a three-day written notificationcan practically determine the fate of the case.

3.3 Statute of limitations: 1 year

The Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) provides for a one-year statute of limitations for compensation claims against the carrier ; if legal action is not taken within this period, the right to claim is forfeited.

The most common mistake in container shortage cases is this: parties are kept busy for months with terminal-customs-insurance correspondence, and then the critical one-year deadline is missed.

3.4 Limitation of Liability: SDR limits and “package/unit” discussion

According to the Turkish Commercial Code, the carrier 666.67 SDR per package/unit or 2 SDR per kilogram (exception: if the type/value is declared before loading and written on the bill of lading).

The key question in calculating the limit in container shipping is:
Is it a "package/unit" that counts as a container, or as the inner packages listed in the bill of lading?
If the bill of lading explicitly states "1 container said to contain 1,000 cartons," the likelihood of the inner packages being counted as "units" increases; if it simply states "1 container," the risk of applying the limit per container increases. Therefore, shortage cases are often as much a matter of interpreting documents.

---

4) Customs aspects in Türkiye: Under-delivery – over-delivery, pressure for notification and proof

Claims of "short landing/overlanding" in Turkish ports are not merely private law claims; the customs administration . In practice, it is emphasized that notification can be made to the ship's agent (on behalf of the ship), and that proving that the shortfall occurred at the loading port or that the difference is "explainable" is crucial in cases of under or overloading.

The practical objective in these files is twofold:

1. Private law compensation (carrier/terminal/road transport, etc.),

2. Administrative risk management (customs explanation, record, evidence).

Therefore, in inventory discrepancies, "evidence" becomes critical not only for the court but also for customs processes.

---

5) Typical shortage scenarios and proof map in Türkiye

Scenario A: Container seal is intact, but contents are missing

This is the most difficult scenario. The carrier is usually:

• SLSC/STC records,

• that the seal number is consistent,

• It claims that there is no record of a seal breach in the gate-in/gate-out chain
  

The claimant's strong evidence would include the following:

• Stuffing report + photos/videos + weighing (container net/gross weight) at loading time

• Warehouse exit records before loading,

• Records showing that the seal number was checked at every stage after the container was loaded,

• Expert report stating that even if the seal appears "intact" upon arrival, it may be counterfeit/altered,

• Commercial flow evidence suggests the deficiency cannot be a "loading deficiency" given the nature of the product.

Scenario B: The seal is broken/incompatible, there are signs of tampering on the lid

In this situation, the likelihood of intervention during the carrier's period of control increases. Critical evidence for the claimant:

• Seal status on terminal handover receipt/EIR,

• CCTV, security footage,

• Preparation of a “damage/irregularity report”,

• De-stuffing under supervision , and any deficiencies should be immediately documented.

In this scenario, the 3-day notice rule is generally easier to enforce; however, maintaining the discipline of written notices is still necessary.

Scenario C: Incorrect container delivery / misdelivery

Here, the issue shifts from a "counting" dispute to a "delivery" dispute. The evidence:

• Matching the booking/bill of lading (B/L) number with the container number

• Terminal gate-out logs,

• Carrier/terminal delivery chain,

• Arrival warehouse acceptance records.

Scenario D: LCL / console transports

In LCL (Lockout/Consolidation), multiple containers share the same cargo. In case of a discrepancy in the count:

• consolidator/forwarder role,

• "Who is considered the carrier" and who actually controls it
  become even more important. If the type of bill of lading (master B/L – house B/L) and the parties' roles are not correctly established, the lawsuit will be directed against the wrong person.

---

6) What wins the dispute: “document chain” and “timeline”

A good strategy for container shortage files is to treat the container as a single entity and document its movement step by step:

1. Stuffing: packing list, stuffing report, photos/videos, weighing slip, seal number

2. Inland transportation (if applicable): CMR/delivery note, warehouse receipt

3. Terminal gate-in: EIR, weighing, seal verification log

4. Loading onto the ship: load list, bay plan, terminal records

5. Discharge: discharge list, terminal outturn report

6. Gate-out: EIR, seal control

7. De-stuffing: supervised opening, record keeping, inventory sheet, photos/videos.

If any link in this chain breaks, the other side strengthens its defense that "the deficiency arose at another stage.".

---

7) Practical steps in Türkiye: What to do if deficiencies are detected upon arrival?

Things to do on the same day

• Record the container seal with a photo/video (making sure the seal number is legible)

• If possible, have the container weighed (a difference in gross weight is very strong evidence, especially in cases of shortages on a package basis).

• Don't conduct de-stuffing unilaterally; if possible, invite the other party/joint survey

• Request EIR and entry/exit records from the terminal/warehouse

Within the first 3 days

• Send a written notification to the carrier (general nature of the deficiency, container number, Bill of Lading number, delivery date, report information). The 3-day period is often decisive in cases of missing items inside the container.

Within 1 year

• Plan the litigation/arbitration route (according to the clause); set the one-year statute of limitations as a "red line" in the case's timeline.

---

8) Typical defenses of the carrier and counter-evidence to be presented against them

8.1 “SLSC/STC exists, the count is not mine”

Counter-argument:

• SLSC does not automatically relieve the carrier for the external security and custody of the container ; responsibility is reinstated when evidence is established (seal breach, terminal records, gate reports, CCTV) that the shortage occurred under the carrier's control.

• Furthermore, in some cases the deficiency is not due to a count but an incorrect delivery/wrong container ; SLSC cannot cover up this type of delivery defect.

8.2 “No notification was given, presumption was established”

This defense is strong in the Turkish Commercial Code system. If notification/verification is not made, a presumption of delivery arises in favor of the carrier.
Counter-move:

• Proof that notification was given within the specified period (KEP, registered mail, email + read receipt, agency correspondence),

• Or present strong technical evidence (seal, weighing, CCTV, minutes) to refute the presumption.

8.3 “Limit applies” (SDR limitation)

At this point, two files are being processed simultaneously:

1. Is there any responsibility?

2. If applicable, what is the quantity? (package/unit discussion)
   Turkish Commercial Code limits and bill of lading content are directly determining factors.

---

9) Practical suggestions for contract and bill of lading regulations (reducing disputes before they arise)

From the perspective of the shipper/importer

• Standardize container stuffing reports: number of boxes, number of pallets, photos/videos, seal number, and weighing.

• If possible, the number of inner packages is clearly stated (critical for unit calculations).

• Establish a procedure to confirm the seal number at each handover point after loading.

From the carrier/forwarder's perspective

• SLSC/STC records with risk analysis because excessive reservations can backfire in business relationships and lead to credibility issues in some cases.

• Regularly archive terminal/agent logs (EIR, gate, seal check); the quickest way to win when a shortage file arrives is to be able to show the "chain".

---

Conclusion: The container shortage case is not a "counting" case, but a "chain" case

In container shipping, cargo shortage disputes often go beyond simply "missing parcels"; bill of lading records, seal management, terminal and gate records, the Turkish Commercial Code notification regime, and the one-year statute of limitations. The carrier's liability depends on whether the loss/damage occurred under the carrier's control. Failure to notify can create strong presumptions in favor of the carrier. Even if liability arises, SDR limits and the "parcel/unit" dispute can determine the maximum amount of compensation.

Therefore, in the Turkish application, success depends on accurate records and written notifications within the first 72 hours , a single chronological set of documents , and the correct reading of the bill of lading language .