Peru Court Grants Regulator Oversight of China-Built Chancay Port

Peruvian Court Reverses Course on Chancay Port Oversight

A Peruvian court has overturned an earlier ruling and confirmed that state regulator Ositran holds oversight authority over the Chancay port, a facility built and operated by China’s COSCO. According to a report by Maritime Executive, the decision comes amid a broader geopolitical contest between the United States and China over strategic infrastructure across Latin America.

The ruling reverses a January decision that had favored COSCO’s position that Chancay, being privately financed, fell outside government concession rules and therefore should not be subject to Ositran’s regulatory reach. The appellate court disagreed, finding that because the port serves public use, Ositran retains the legal authority to regulate, supervise, inspect, and sanction its operators under Peruvian law.

A Port Caught Between Two Powers

Chancay, located roughly 50 miles north of Lima, was built by COSCO at a reported cost of $1.3 billion. It opened in November 2024 and reached full commercial operation in June 2025, with designed annual capacity of one million TEU. COSCO Shipping Ports Chancay reported handling more than 500,000 TEU and 2.4 million tonnes of cargo in its first year, with vessel calls up 44 percent and cargo volume up 74 percent in the first five months of 2026 compared with the same period a year earlier.

The port has drawn sustained attention from Washington, with American officials arguing that Chinese control could carry “dual usage” military implications and represent a threat to the Western Hemisphere. That rhetoric echoes similar U.S. concerns over Chinese-linked terminal operations at the Panama Canal, a subject President Trump raised again this week at the opening of a museum honoring Theodore Roosevelt, the canal’s original builder. Beijing has rejected both sets of accusations and stated it will act to protect Chinese commercial interests abroad.

China, for its part, promotes Chancay as a critical Asia-Latin America trade link, citing westbound transit times to Shanghai cut to 23 days and 25 days on the return voyage, along with expanded export opportunities for Peru’s agricultural sector.

Why This Matters for Port Oversight and Inspection Practice

The ruling is not yet final and remains open to further appeal, so the regulatory picture at Chancay is still unsettled. But the case highlights a question that extends well beyond Peru: when foreign-financed terminal infrastructure operates as a de facto public utility, who actually holds inspection and enforcement authority over safety, operations, and commercial conduct?

For ship owners, managers, and charterers routing vessels through Chancay or similar privately built terminals in politically contested jurisdictions, clarity on regulatory jurisdiction has direct operational consequences. Ambiguity over which authority — the port operator or the national regulator — is responsible for inspection, safety compliance, and dispute resolution can create uncertainty around berthing terms, liability in incidents, and the enforceability of port state control measures. Terminals built under unconventional ownership and concession structures, as Chancay was, may see their compliance and inspection regimes shift depending on how these legal battles resolve, and operators calling there should keep an eye on how Ositran’s restored authority is actually implemented in practice — including whether inspection and reporting requirements change for vessels and cargo handlers using the facility.

The broader dispute also underscores how geopolitical friction over port ownership can spill into practical questions of governance, oversight, and accountability at facilities that shipping lines rely on daily, reinforcing the case for independent verification of cargo, condition, and operational data at ports where regulatory jurisdiction is not fully settled.

Reviewed by Ibrahim Halil Ceylan, Marine Surveyor at Apeks Marine.