ZIM shipping line discontinued the eCommerce Xpress (ZEX) service, which was launched during the period of sudden high demand of the freight market in 2020, at the end of March.
The termination of ZEX means that the Israeli shipping line will no longer call at ports in Los Angeles and will return to their traditional markets in the Pacific Northwest and the US East Coast.
According to container shipping consultancy Linerlytica, ZEX's last train will be on March 30, 2023, when the 4,253-TEU Alexander Bay completes its journey in Busan.
ZEX was launched in June 2020 to meet growing demand on the transpacific route, due to increased logistics bottlenecks amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
ZEX was originally designed to call only at Yantian, Dachan Bay, Los Angeles with a round trip time of 35 days, and used five 4,250 TEU container ships.
ZEX marks Zim's return to the Southwest Pacific service after first withdrawing from the service in 2004 as the carrier focuses primarily on the US West Coast Pacific Northwest as well as US West Coast routes. the airline's traditional mainline to the East Coast of the United States.
The successful launch of ZEX led to the introduction of two more Southwest Pacific services, Zim Southeast Asia eCommerce Xpress (ZX2) in March 2021 and Zim Central China eCommerce Xpress (ZX3) in May 2019. 2021. However, severe port congestion on the US West Coast forces ZIM to drop the ZX2 and ZX3 services in March 2022 and merge the modified ZEX service with calls to ports: Ningbo , Xiamen, Yantian, Los Angeles, Busan, Ningbo.
Confirming the end of ZEX service, a ZIM spokesperson told Container News, “ZEX, a premium service designed for e-commerce, has been suspended until further notice due to demand. change. We are constantly reviewing and adjusting our services. These changes are part of our flexible approach, as we pay close attention to market volatility.”
For many years, logistics was viewed primarily as a back-end support function. Today, amid increasing global trade volatility, logistics has become a strategic factor directly influencing business growth, risk management capability, and long-term competitiveness.
Amid ongoing global supply chain restructuring, Vietnam is emerging as a key manufacturing and sourcing hub in Asia. The “China+1” strategy and the need for risk diversification are driving multinational corporations to expand their presence in Vietnam.
Entering April 2026, escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have triggered a systemic disruption across global logistics networks. However, for Vietnamese import-export enterprises, the immediate risk is no longer confined to the Middle East. The critical pressure point has shifted to Asia’s transshipment hubs-most notably Singapore-where congestion is now constraining regional cargo flows at scale.
In the proud and joyful atmosphere of May, Glotrans Hanoi officially marks its 14-year milestone of establishment and growth – a journey driven by relentless effort, solidarity, and continuous advancement.
Glotrans would like to inform our valued Customers and Partners of our upcoming holiday schedule as follows:
April 23, 2026 marks the 5-year milestone of establishment and development of Glotrans – Quy Nhon Branch. Though the journey is not long, it is enough to affirm the resilience, dedication, and strong growth spirit of a young, dynamic, and promising team.
The shipment of food additives was transported in container No. FCIU3301688 (20’), under B/L MPRSMUM1806, on the voyage from Nhavasheva Port (India) to Dinh Vu Port (Hai Phong, Vietnam) on 29/04/2017.
Company T (Plaintiff – the Insured) entered into an insurance contract with Company B (Defendant – the Insurer). After the insured event occurred, the Insurer alleged that the Insured had violated its obligation to prevent and mitigate losses. The Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged that such an obligation exists but concluded that the Insured did not breach it.
Under the insurance contract, the premium was to be paid in three installments, and in all three, the insured party was late in payment. When a dispute arose, the insurer (Defendant) argued that the insurance contract had terminated before the insured event occurred due to the late premium payment and therefore refused to make an insurance payout. However, the Arbitral Tribunal held a contrary view.
