Asia–Middle East container price index rises 250%

Container Trades Statistics (CTS) reports that its freight price index for services from the Far East to the Indian subcontinent and Middle East rose 250% between January and September 2026, including a 25% month-on-month rise in September. CTS chief executive Nigel Pusey disclosed the corridor figures in an interview published on 10 November, describing a sharp rebound in cargo movements alongside exceptional pressure on the cost of moving containers towards the Gulf.

The 250% increase measures a change in a defined trade-lane index rather than in every shipping quotation issued to a customer. CTS derives its price indices from invoiced container freight data supplied by carriers. Its methodology covers quay-to-quay transport and specified related charges, including bunker adjustments, congestion surcharges and terminal handling charges; customs, inland delivery and other parts of a shipper’s complete logistics bill are separate. A quoted rate on a particular day can also differ from an index based on completed transactions.

CTS combines the Indian subcontinent and Middle East into one destination region for its principal reporting series. Port calls facing the Strait of Hormuz are consequently only part of a wider set of movements. Pusey also cited a narrower Greater China–Middle East index of 392, but that numerical level should not be substituted for the entire regional series without matching the underlying coverage. Port of loading, destination and routing still determine the disruption to which an individual shipment is exposed.

September saw cargo return to the Greater China–Middle East trade following earlier conflict-related contraction. In the interview, Pusey put the relevant flow’s month-on-month volume increase at 15.5%, although year-to-date volumes remained 12% lower. The recovery therefore represents a sharp improvement in a single month, not a complete reversal of the reduction in traffic during the preceding period. Higher demand coinciding with strained transport capacity helps explain why stronger volumes did not bring lower rates.

The number of vessels nominally assigned to a shipping network does not determine how many usable slots are available every week. When ships take longer routes, wait outside congested terminals or miss onward connections, each round trip consumes additional vessel days. Service operators then have less capacity available for the next scheduled departure unless they add equipment or change rotations. Such changes can take longer to implement than a rapid recovery in booking demand.

At the Gulf’s alternative gateways, delays can spread beyond the ship’s time at berth. Cargo discharged at Khor Fakkan or Fujairah may require handling and inland transport arrangements to reach its final consignee, while containers occupying terminal storage space can obstruct the next wave of arrivals. Berth capacity, yard density, available trucks and border procedures place separate limits on how quickly an increased flow can be cleared.

The late-August and early-September demand recovery concentrated traffic at routes serving cargo owners seeking access to Gulf markets despite the disruption. Higher volumes did not immediately release extra berth or transport capacity. The Loadstar’s 10 November interview also reported congestion at the principal gateways outside Hormuz, where additional ship calls can compete for finite handling windows. No uniform clearance time or surcharge can be inferred for every port from the regional index.

CTS price data include the ocean and associated quay-to-quay charges specified in its methodology; they do not describe the total delivered cost of a consignment. A manufacturer importing components may separately pay for customs administration, inland haulage, warehousing and any extra inventory required to cover unpredictable transit times. The price series also reflects an aggregate of invoices, so it should not be presented as a fixed spot tariff for a standard 40-foot container.

A shipper’s exposure depends partly on contract structure. Freight covered by a longer-term rate agreement may behave differently from a short-notice shipment booked at prevailing market prices, while the availability of a contracted rate does not guarantee that a particular sailing or transhipment connection will remain unchanged. Procurement teams comparing alternatives must assess both price and the service actually available to carry the cargo.

CTS’s own September release, published on 6 November, recorded a global container price index of 123 points, up 5.1% on August and 62% on September 2025. The same release measured 17.35 million twenty-foot equivalent units of worldwide liftings in September, down 1.4% from August but 8% above a year earlier. These global figures provide a measured contrast with the much sharper 250% movement in the specific Far East–Indian subcontinent and Middle East corridor.

Worldwide third-quarter liftings reached 52.2 million TEU, 2.4% above the second quarter, according to CTS. Its regional figures also recorded the first quarterly year-on-year increase in imports to the Indian subcontinent and Middle East since the disruption began, albeit by only about 6,600 TEU. That narrow increase followed a 12% decline in the second quarter and does not mean the earlier lost volume had been restored.

Carrier adjustments are already affecting how containers reach Gulf destinations. Services can discharge cargo outside the strait and transfer it overland, but the alternative still needs terminal space, road capacity, customs clearance and a workable delivery schedule. Moving a booking to another gateway can exchange one constraint for another, especially if several shipping lines choose the same diversion simultaneously.

The uncertainty is also reflected in inventory decisions. Production facilities awaiting imported components may order earlier or hold additional stock to reduce the chance that a late shipment interrupts manufacturing. That protection carries storage and financing costs, so procurement savings from another source or route have to be assessed against the quantity and timing of material actually arriving at the plant.

Pusey’s 250% figure compares the corridor’s September index with its position at the start of 2026, while the 25% figure is the movement from August to September. The index does not show that every customer paid the same proportionate increase, or that all Middle Eastern destinations are interchangeable. The Greater China sub-index and the CTS global index must likewise remain separate when illustrating the scale of the freight market’s divergence.

The next monthly release will show whether container demand and pricing continued to rise in October after September’s recovery. The available September data already establish two distinct conditions: global container volumes remained higher than a year earlier, while the Far East–Indian subcontinent and Middle East corridor experienced exceptional freight price inflation amid disrupted routings and constrained destination capacity.