← Back
Proof · Outcomes

Case Studies

Anonymized recoveries by industry, vessel class, and root cause. Add your win to this page — free audits available to publishable customers.

New findings · Lagos — Apapa · Aug 2026

NGN 536,992 disputed out of NGN 2,415,736 billed

Demands served · recovery in progress

Two real invoices, audited line by line against the filed MSC Nigeria and APM Terminals Apapa tariffs. Disputed amounts identified — demands served, recovery in progress.

NGN 278,188
≈ $182 · Undefined tariff lines
APM Terminals Apapa · import statement

Gate-out delivery, scanning services and the VAT levied on top of them carry no code in the filed terminal tariff. A charge that cannot be named against a published tariff cannot be defended, and the burden of substantiating it sits with the terminal.

Evidence demanded: Tariff page, effective date and the clause authorising each line.

NGN 244,384
≈ $160 · Above the published band
APM Terminals Apapa · THC gate-out

THC gate-out on a 40ft box was billed far above the ceiling of the published rate range for that tariff code on comparable lanes. The excess over the band needs a contractual basis, and none was supplied with the invoice.

Evidence demanded: The rate-agreement clause supporting the above-band amount.

NGN 14,420
≈ $9 · Stacked micro-fees
MSC Nigeria · import demurrage invoice

Three unexplained VAT and stamp-duty lines stacked on a single demurrage invoice — each one small enough to survive a manual review, and repeated on every box. Across a year of shipments this is one of the largest recoverable pools we see.

Evidence demanded: A tariff reference and cost basis for each fee under the threshold.

Independent review · Port of Callao

We paid an ex-Maersk auditor to break our report

Five corrections to tier schedules, clock basis, evidence rules, missing charge families and line consistency — all now enforced in the engine.

Loading…