Every export shipment from Bangladesh begins long before a factory seals a container with garments, pharmaceuticals or leather goods. It begins with an empty one. That empty steel box rarely attracts public attention. Yet it is one of the most valuable element in global trade. The same container that carries apparel from Chattogram to Rotterdam today may return with machinery from East Asia, transport food products across another continent next month and continue repeating that journey hundreds of times during its working life. It is constantly moving, constantly serving new supply chains and constantly crossing international borders.
An empty container carries no cargo, but without it no export can begin. That is why the recent debate over where empty containers should be stored deserves attention far beyond the logistics industry. At first glance, it appears to be a disagreement over storage space at Chattogram Port. In reality, it raises a much larger question: has Bangladesh's legal and institutional framework kept pace with the country's rapidly evolving logistics sector?
The immediate issue is familiar. As container volumes continue to grow, the Chattogram Port Authority (CPA) faces increasing pressure to use valuable terminal space more efficiently. One proposal under discussion is to allow shipping lines to store empty containers outside bonded private inland container depots (ICDs), thereby freeing scarce yard space for import and export cargo. Many exporters and sections of the business community view the proposal as a practical response to congestion. Private ICD operators, however, fear that it could undermine investments made under the existing regulatory framework.
It is tempting to view this as a contest between competing commercial interests. It is not. Every stakeholder in this debate has a legitimate concern.
The Port Authority is responsible for ensuring that Bangladesh's principal gateway remains fluid and efficient. A congested terminal serves nobody well. Shipping lines need the flexibility to reposition containers quickly so that exporters are not left waiting for equipment. Private ICD operators have invested heavily in specialised facilities under a regulatory framework that has shaped business decisions for decades. Exporters need reliable access to empty containers to honour delivery commitments. Customs authorities must ensure that equipment entering and leaving the country remains subject to appropriate supervision.
Each institution is pursuing a reasonable objective. The fact that those objectives sometimes collide does not necessarily indicate institutional failure. Rather, it suggests that Bangladesh's logistics system has reached a level of maturity where operational decisions alone can no longer resolve every challenge. Some questions require a broader look at the legal framework that governs the movement of internationally circulating transport equipment.
That distinction is important because an empty container is unlike almost anything else moving through a port.
A television imported into Bangladesh is expected to remain here. So is a machine purchased by a factory or a vehicle imported for domestic use. An empty shipping container is fundamentally different. It is not brought into the country to be consumed, sold or permanently used. Its purpose is to carry cargo across borders before moving on to the next destination in a continuous international transport cycle.
In other words, its economic value lies not in staying, but in moving. That simple fact has significant implications for the way containers are regulated.
From the Port Authority's perspective, an empty container occupies valuable yard space that could otherwise be used for cargo handling. From the perspective of a shipping line, the same container is a transport asset that must be repositioned efficiently within a global network. Customs authorities view it through the lens of border control and regulatory compliance. Exporters see tomorrow's shipment. Private ICDs see an integral part of the country's container logistics system..
The challenge is not that any of them is wrong. The challenge is that they are all looking at the same container through different institutional responsibilities.This explains why operational solutions often generate fresh debates. A measure that improves port efficiency may alter business incentives elsewhere. A decision that benefits exporters may affect investments made under existing regulations. A policy that strengthens customs oversight may reduce operational flexibility for shipping lines.
These are not contradictions. They are the natural consequences of governing an asset that simultaneously serves multiple public and private interests. Interestingly, international trading system confronted exactly the same issue decades ago.
As containerisation transformed global shipping during the second half of the twentieth century, governments recognised that containers could not be treated in exactly the same way as ordinary imported goods. Unlike commercial cargo, containers circulate continuously across borders as part of the transport system itself. Their legal treatment therefore required a different approach-one that could facilitate international trade while preserving effective customs control.
That thinking eventually found expression in the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972, which recognises containers primarily as articles of transport equipment rather than simply another category of imported goods. The Convention allows containers to enter a country under temporary admission arrangements, enabling them to move efficiently through international trade while remaining subject to customs supervision and an obligation to be re-exported within a specified period unless Customs authorises otherwise.
The significance of this approach is often overlooked. The Convention does not ask governments to choose between trade facilitation and customs control. It seeks to achieve both. In fact, the World Customs Organization explains that these are the Convention's two principal objectives: facilitating the international movement of containers while ensuring effective customs oversight.
Bangladesh is not currently a Contracting Party to the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972. That is, of course, a sovereign policy decision. But as the country's trade volumes continue to expand and its logistics network becomes increasingly integrated with global supply chains, the underlying principles of the Convention deserve careful attention. They provide an internationally recognised framework for viewing containers not merely as objects occupying storage space, but as transport equipment whose uninterrupted circulation is essential to commerce.
The World Customs Organisation's handbook on the Convention reinforces this philosophy. It emphasises that facilitating trade and maintaining customs control are complementary objectives rather than competing ones. Efficient logistics does not require weaker regulation; it requires regulation that reflects the operational realities of modern transport.
Viewed from that perspective, the current discussion in Bangladesh becomes less about where empty containers should be stored and more about how they should be governed.
This is also where the Chittagong Port Authority Act, 2022, provides an important legal context. The Act includes containers within the statutory definition of "goods" for the purposes of port administration. That is entirely understandable. A port authority must have clear legal powers to regulate, move and manage everything within its jurisdiction, including containers. Without such authority, efficient terminal operations would be impossible.
Yet the operational needs of a port and the broader legal treatment of internationally circulating transport equipment are not necessarily identical questions.
Ports naturally focus on maximising terminal productivity. Shipping lines focus on maintaining equipment availability. Customs focuses on compliance. Exporters focus on securing containers when production schedules demand them. Private ICDs focus on providing specialised logistics services supported by long-term investments. These perspectives complement one another, but they are not always perfectly aligned. That is precisely why mature trading nations periodically review their legal frameworks as logistics systems evolve.
The country's logistics landscape today is very different from that of two decades ago. Export volumes have grown several-fold. Private inland container depots have become indispensable to export logistics. Inland container terminals are gradually expanding their role. Digitalisation initiatives-including the Port Community System, Customs modernisation and the National Single Window-are gradually reshaping the flow of information across the supply chain. New deep-sea port infrastructure at Matarbari promises to connect Bangladesh more directly with global shipping networks.
These developments reflect a logistics ecosystem that is becoming more sophisticated every year. As systems evolve, legal and institutional arrangements inevitably come under fresh scrutiny-not because they were wrong when they were introduced, but because the operating environment has changed. That is a natural progression experienced by every trading nation.
The present discussion therefore offers something more valuable than a solution to a storage issue. It offers an opportunity to ask a broader question: does Bangladesh have a sufficiently clear and coherent legal framework for governing containers throughout their entire life cycle-from their arrival in the country, through their operational use, to their eventual departure?
It involves policymakers, regulators, the Port Authority, Customs, shipping lines, private terminal operators, exporters and the wider logistics community. More importantly, it should be informed by international experience while remaining responsive to Bangladesh's own commercial realities. No single model can simply be copied. But there is considerable value in understanding how other trading nations distinguish between cargo and transport equipment while safeguarding both operational efficiency and regulatory oversight.
The objective should not be to favour one stakeholder over another. Nor should it be to resolve today's operational debate through temporary administrative measures alone.
Instead, Bangladesh should seek a framework that provides long-term legal certainty for everyone involved in the container supply chain. Clear rules reduce uncertainty. Predictable governance encourages investment. Efficient circulation of containers strengthens export competitiveness. These are shared interests, not competing ones.
For that reason, Bangladesh may also find it timely to undertake a comprehensive review of the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972, together with the accompanying guidance developed by the World Customs Organisation. Such a review would not predetermine any policy outcome. Rather, it would allow policymakers to assess how international principles might inform future reforms in light of Bangladesh's own institutional, commercial and regulatory circumstances.
After all, the issue before us is larger than empty containers. It is about ensuring that one of the world's most important transport assets is governed in a way that reflects the realities of twenty-first century trade.
Every day, thousands of empty containers quietly enter and leave Bangladesh. Few people notice them. They generate no headlines. Yet each one represents the beginning of another export order, another manufacturing cycle and another opportunity for Bangladesh to compete in global markets.
An empty container carries no cargo. But it carries the confidence of exporters that equipment will be available when production is complete. It carries the expectations of global buyers waiting for shipments to arrive on time. It carries the efficiency of ports striving to use scarce land wisely. It carries the investments of private logistics operators who have built the country's export infrastructure. And it carries the responsibility of public institutions to ensure that international trade remains both efficient and properly regulated.
The current debate should therefore not be remembered simply as a discussion about storage space. It should be recognised as an opportunity to build greater legal clarity around one of the most fundamental components of modern trade.
Ahamedul Karim Chowdhury, maritime, logistics and supply chain policy analyst and former Head of ICD Kamalapur & Pangaon ICT.
[email protected]
