Substantial Amendments Regarding Customs Clearance Formalities for Imported Goods in Egypt

The Executive Regulations of the Customs Law have undergone a fundamental amendment to the delivery procedures, aimed – according to the vision of the Egyptian Customs Authority – at accelerating customs clearance time and reducing it to one point nine days in fulfilment of the verbally declared targets.

However, the decree appears to have proceeded from an assumption that one of the principal factors, or perhaps the most influential factor, in the delay of customs clearance lies in the importer’s inability to obtain the delivery order from the carrier’s agent in a timely manner, and accordingly sought to remove this procedural constraint by permitting the instigation of the customs declaration prior to the submission of the delivery order.  Nevertheless, it is not evident from the decree or from any accompanying memoranda – if any exist – whether this approach was based on actual statistics or empirical studies substantiating the validity of this assumption, or revealing the relative weight of this factor compared to other factors affecting clearance time., such as the difficulties that some importers may encounter in securing foreign currency, the timeframes required for valuation committees to complete their assessments, or the time needed to obtain approvals from the various competent authorities— which vary depending on the nature of the goods — as well as the procedures for challenging the decisions of such authorities in the event of regulatory rejection of the goods.

Accordingly, from our perspective, the decree under consideration has not addressed the practical and commercial reasons that may lead to delays by some importers in obtaining the delivery order from the carriers’ agents, which in many cases may be attributable to circumstances unrelated to the procedures of the carrier or its agent, but rather connected to the contractual relationship between the shipper and the importer, or to payment difficulties and the procurement of foreign currency, or other commercial and financing considerations. In light of the foregoing, the question arises – irrespective of the assessment of the decree’s effects and the legal and practical considerations that may result therefrom, which shall be addressed hereafter – as to whether this amendment, in and of itself, is sufficient to achieve the intended effect on customs clearance time, and whether it addresses the root cause of the delay or merely addresses one of its manifestations.

Irrespective of the extent to which this amendment may affect customs clearance time, it is important to examine its substance and practical implications for the parties involved in the international transport and trade chain, particularly maritime carriers and their agents, as they are among the parties most affected by any amendment that touches upon the relationship between the possession of goods and their disposal on the one hand, and ownership and delivery documents on the other.

In this context, the Minister of Finance issued Decree No.262 of 2026 replacing the text of Article  232 of the Executive Regulations of the Customs Law with respect to the documents required for opening the customs declaration for imported goods (i.e., the commencement of customs clearance procedures). Prior to the amendment, the text required the attachment of the delivery order and a copy of the bill of lading among the essential documents for opening the customs declaration, in addition to the commercial invoice, packing list and the certificate of origin. Following the amendment, the text now permits the opening of the customs declaration without the submission of the delivery order, with the exception of bills of lading issued “To Order,” in which case the delivery order remains required. In return, the new decree introduced a declaration system for straight (named) bills of lading (whether Original or Seaway Bill), whereby the importer or its agent is required to submit an undertaking in accordance with the form yet to be published by the Customs Authority, containing the importer’s commitment to settle the amounts due to the relevant parties and to submit the delivery order, or its electronic equivalent, prior to the final release/ gating out of the goods.

As a consequence of this amendment, the delivery order no longer constitutes a prerequisite for the commencement of customs procedures in the majority of import cases, having previously been the most essential document required for opening the customs declaration. Accordingly, the function of the delivery order – at this stage at least – has shifted from being a document required prior to the commencement of procedures to a document that must be submitted at a subsequent stage before the final release of the goods. Therefore, the assessment of the impact of this amendment is not limited to the extent of its contribution to expediting customs procedures but extends to the examination of the legal and practical consequences that may arise therefrom for maritime carriers, shippers, importers, and other relevant parties.

Although this amendment ostensibly aims to regulate and expedite the release of goods and taking into account that the provisions of the Customs Law or the new decree do not distinguish between types of goods (containerized, general cargo vessels, or dry or liquid bulk). But, it is likely in practice that the application of this system may be mainly confined to containerized goods, as it is practically difficult to envisage, enabling any party to commence procedures relating to bulk or general cargo without a clear legal instrument establishing its entitlement to receive or deal with such goods. We therefore consider it important to seek clarification from the Customs Authority regarding the scope of application of this amendment, and whether it is limited to containerized goods or extends to other modes of shipment. 

Additional Points and Implications:

1. The decree did not specify what is meant by the “copy of the bill of lading” required to be submitted among the documents necessary for opening the customs declaration. From a practical standpoint, in many cases the importer does not have a direct standing vis-à-vis the carrier or its agent prior to the fulfilment of the requirements for the issuance of the delivery order, and accordingly may not be in a position to obtain a current or certified copy of the bill of lading from the carrier’s agent. This raises the question of whether the Customs Authority will, in this regard, rely on the electronic copy uploaded by the shipper via the CargoX platform or otherwise. In such case, the question remains as to the extent to which it is possible to verify that the copy submitted represents the final and latest version of the bill of lading, particularly in cases where subsequent amendments are made to its particulars.
2. In cases where the shipper retains the original bills of lading, it remains legally and practically permissible to make amendments to the shipment data or to the name of the importer, and such amendments may – in certain circumstances – extend to the period after the arrival of the goods and before the issuance of the delivery order to the ultimate consignee or the true beneficiary of the bill of lading. Accordingly, the question arises as to the consequence of proceeding with the opening of the customs declaration on the basis of certain particulars, followed by a subsequent request from the shipper – through the carrier’s agent – to amend the name of the importer or certain material particulars relating to the shipment, such as the description of the goods, their quantities, or the number of packages.
3. Although the decree did not expressly address this issue, as it was  unclear whether inspection or customs examination procedures requiring the opening of containers or unsealing of packages for inspection purposes will be carried out prior to the submission of the delivery order or not, but most probably the implementation of the said decree will allow the  undergoing of the said operations . Given the potential consequences of this issue in relation to ownership rights and the legal liabilities of the various parties, it warrants further clarification and confirmation from the Customs Authority and the relevant authorities.
4. In general, any development or simplification of customs procedures remains a commendable and desirable objective. However, the effectiveness and sustainability of such amendments require their harmonization with the remaining provisions of the Customs Law and the related legal and commercial framework, so as to achieve a balance between considerations of expeditious customs clearance on the one hand, and the protection of the rights and legal positions of all relevant parties on the other, whether they be local entities or foreign parties, including shippers, exporters, maritime carriers, and importers.

The effectiveness and adequacy of the proposed undertaking compared to the potential risks;

It is further noted that the decree has replaced the delivery order with an undertaking from the importer, intended to protect the rights of the relevant parties, including the Customs Authority, shipping agencies, shipping lines, and container terminals. However, this proposed Undertaking – regardless of the precision of its drafting – remains a tool of limited efficacy compared to the potential risks, particularly in cases where the consignee abandons the completion of clearance procedures after inspection as it amounts to no more than written evidence that can only be relied upon for evidentiary purposes before local courts.

Furthermore, the current implementation of this decision has revealed that such undertaking is uploaded by the Customs Authority for the importer to acknowledge through the “Nafeza” customs platform. Accordingly, the original of this undertaking remains in the custody of the Customs Authority and does not bear any original signatures of the importer or its representative, but is instead executed by way of an electronic signature.

This raises a legitimate question as to the willingness of the Customs Authority to cooperate with shipping lines (a matter that is subject to doubt), by providing them with a copy of such undertaking and declaration, accompanied by an explicit statement confirming that the document has been electronically acknowledged by the consignee. This is particularly important given that a mere copy of such declaration, devoid of the original signatures of the importers, would lack any evidentiary value before the court.

In this context, several material risks emerge, which may be summarized as follows:

• The possibility of enabling the importer – whose legal ownership of the goods has not been established – to deal with the goods, including opening and inspecting them, and potentially carrying out processing operations thereon (such as fumigation, repacking, relabeling, or sorting), without any guarantee that the importer will proceed to complete the clearance procedures, which may expose the maritime carrier to claims from the shipper, not to mention possible tampering with the cargo or even its theft. N.B. The Egyptian Customs Law (ECL) continues to recognize the holder of the delivery order as the lawful representative of the cargo owner for the purposes of customs clearance. Pursuant to Article 50 of the ECL: “The holder of the delivery order in respect of the goods shall be deemed to act as a representative of the owner in completing the customs clearance procedures, without any liability attaching to the Authority as a result of delivering the goods thereto.”
• The possibility that the importer may abandon the goods without taking delivery after the commencement of procedures, particularly in cases where the goods are found to be non-compliant to what he exported, or are rejected by the regulatory authorities, which may impose financial and operational burdens on the carrier, not to mention those arising from demurrage and storage charges, which will continue to accrue
• In cases of dispute over the ownership of the goods, enabling the importer named in the manifest to commence customs procedures on the goods may result in the customs declaration being treated as a legal presumption of ownership before the Egyptian courts, notwithstanding the importer’s possible failure to pay the value of the goods or the non-transfer of ownership therein to the importer as a matter of law.
• The Undertaking submitted by the consignee – despite its importance – remains merely written evidence that may not afford sufficient protection to the carrier, nor ensure the satisfaction of its rights or the rights of third parties in the event of a dispute. It is, in effect, an invitation to resort to litigation.

In light of the foregoing, and in our view, it would have been more appropriate – from a practical standpoint

• to require the provision of adequate financial security, whether in the form of a Bank LOG ,cash deposit or an insurance policy in favour of the relevant parties, in an appropriate amount (which may reach up to twice the documentary value of the goods), to cover any potential claims from shippers, in addition to demurrage charges, storage fees, destruction costs where applicable, customs duties, and other obligations. Concurrently with,
• the imposition of financial penalties on importers who fail to complete customs procedures after having commenced them, or the granting of specified reductions to importers who expedite the clearance of their goods within short timeframes.

Accordingly, this amendment – notwithstanding its regulatory objectives – raises legal and practical considerations of paramount importance, requiring all relevant parties to approach it with caution and to adopt the necessary measures to mitigate the risks that may arise from its implementation.

Recommendations for Carriers.

• It may be necessary to incorporate a new clause or reservation in bills of lading and/or booking confirmations for goods destined for Egypt, to the effect of notifying shippers that their goods may be subject to customs inspection, and that the importer named in the discharge list submitted to Customs and all customs transactions generally may be processed upon discharge at Egyptian ports, notwithstanding the absence of a delivery order, and that the carrier shall bear no liability for any tampering with or damage or theft to the goods resulting from imposters access to the cargo or customs inspections and examinations or those conducted by any of the relevant official authorities. Furthermore, shippers shall be responsible for the payment of demurrage and/or detention charges in the event that consignees fail to proceed with the completion of clearance procedures or to obtain a delivery order.
• Carriers are also required to draw the attention of shippers to the fact that they may – at their discretion – exclude the application of the practical implications of the newly introduced regime referred to above, by issuing Bills of Lading on a “To Order” basis, whether to the order of a named consignee or to order in blank (To Order / To Order Blank). Adopting such an approach shall result in the continued requirement for the submission of a Delivery Order as a fundamental condition for the initiation and conduct of customs clearance procedures, thereby ensuring full legal protection of the shippers’ rights and preventing any party from dealing with the cargo or taking any action in respect thereof without being in possession of the original Bill of Lading.
• Accordingly, the choice of the form of the Bill of Lading remains a powerful legal instrument in the hands of the shipper to control the circulation of documents and to ensure that cargo is not released except in strict accordance with their explicit will and contractual terms.
• The Egyptian maritime community should seek clarification from the Customs Authority as to whether the new Procedures Circular extends in its effect to other categories of non-containerized goods or not.

We trust that this overview has provided useful clarity on the recent legislative amendment. We remain at your disposal to address any queries you may have or to discuss its implications on the day-to-day operations of container vessel operators in Egypt.