Freight Forwarder From China to Peru | One-stop Logistics Solutions

A long-term customer in Peru sourced furniture components from three factories located in Foshan, Zhongshan, and Guangzhou. Although the products belonged to the same project, production schedules still varied by nearly 15 days, and each supplier used different carton markings, product descriptions, and HS codes. If shipped separately, the customer would have faced higher freight costs, multiple destination charges, and additional customs documentation requirements in Peru.

To help customers solve this problem, GWT collected the cargo in batches at our Guangzhou warehouse while waiting for all suppliers to complete production. Before loading, our team standardized carton markings, reviewed packing lists, and corrected HS code inconsistencies to ensure all documents matched the actual cargo.

Once all cargo arrived, we loaded approximately 56 CBM into one 40HQ container and arranged direct ocean freight from Guangzhou to Callao. As a result, the customer reduced logistics costs by approximately 20–30% compared with separate shipments. Cargo consolidated into one shipment not only reduces the risk of delays at the Peruvian customs but also enables the customers to receive all the purchased goods 10 days earlier.

Our customer from San Isidro, Lima, purchased 20 units of children’s electric vehicles from Shenzhen. The supplier only listed the cargo as “Plastic Toy Car” on the invoice and packing list, but the goods were actually rechargeable children’s vehicles with detachable lithium batteries (12V/7Ah).

According to the regulations of Peru’s customs agency SUNAT, toys containing lithium batteries fall under Class 9 dangerous goods (UN3481). They must clearly indicate the type and capacity of the batteries in the invoice and shipping documents, and attach the UN38.3 inspection report. Making a vague description of “plastic toys” is highly likely to trigger the red inspection channel. If it is verified that lithium batteries were not declared, one may face the seizure of goods, a fine of up to $600 – $1,000 per shipment, and even return of the goods.

Before shipping, GWT found that the shipper had not made the declaration. We immediately contacted both the customer and the shipper, and updated documents to “Electric Ride-on Car with Lithium Battery (12V/7Ah)”. We also supplemented the UN38.3 summary, the 14th part of the MSDS, and corrected the customs code to 9503.00 (powered toys with an engine). The entire modification was completed within 36 hours. After the goods arrived at Callao Port, the shipment was released by SUNAT without additional customs inspection.

A customer in Miraflores, Peru, chose GWT to arrange air freight shipping from China to Peru for 500 branded smartwatches.

After reviewing the shipment, we found that although the smartwatch brand was not internationally well known, it was already popular in the Latin American market. Based on the import requirements in Peru, this shipment still required a brand authorization letter before customs clearance.

Before shipment, we contacted the customer to obtain the authorization letter issued by the brand owner. We also prepared Spanish versions of the commercial invoice, packing list, and authorization letter, clearly indicating the brand name and product serial numbers.

After the cargo departed from China, GWT forwarded the complete shipping documents to our customs broker in Lima for advance review. The documents were updated to comply with SUNAT customs requirements before the cargo arrived in Peru, helping the cargo pass customs clearance smoothly without unnecessary document-related delays.

A long-term GWT customer, a Peruvian trading company specializing in sourcing products for local importers, required an LCL shipment of 4.9 CBM of swim hangers from Guangzhou, China. Cargo was collected in Guangzhou, with LCL transportation from Shenzhen to Chancay Port, Peru, under CFR terms.

Shortly before departure, the consignee requested a change in shipping arrangements, replacing the original CFR terms with its nominated freight forwarder. The shipment was subsequently converted from CFR to FOB to accommodate the new logistics plan.

A comparison of the total landed cost showed little difference between the two shipping options. Although ocean freight shifted to the nominated forwarder under FOB terms, the origin charges in China remained largely unchanged, resulting in an overall logistics cost comparable to the original CFR arrangement.

Rather than comparing ocean freight alone, GWT conducted a detailed review of both CFR and FOB quotations, covering origin charges, export documentation, handling fees, and the total landed cost. This cost-based comparison provided a clearer basis for selecting the most economical shipping solution.

Following the cost comparison, the customer retained the original CFR shipping arrangement. The shipment departed on schedule while helping the customer avoid an unnecessary change in shipping terms and additional coordination costs.