Pre-Shipment Inspection Passed: Can a Buyer Still Claim for Later Defects?

A pre-shipment inspection marked “pass” does not, by itself, settle every later claim against a Chinese supplier. Its effect depends on what was inspected, what the sale contract makes final, the inspector’s authority, and when the alleged defect existed and was discoverable. A favourable report is important evidence; it should neither be ignored nor treated as a guarantee that every unit will perform in every condition.

This guide concerns commercial purchases from mainland Chinese sellers. It addresses the effect of an earlier inspection, rather than repeating the general rules on inspection and defect notices. Sources checked on 22 October 2026. 中文版本.

1. Read the report’s scope before reading its conclusion

Obtain the complete report, its appendices and the instructions given to the inspector. Match the inspected order, batch, production stage and sampling population to the goods actually shipped. Record the number of units tested, the methods, agreed acceptance criteria, excluded tests and any limitations. “Pass” for a visual and dimensional sample does not establish that an unperformed endurance test succeeded.

Conversely, if the later complaint concerns the very feature expressly tested and approved, the buyer must address that contrary evidence. Explain any difference in the test method, sample identity, equipment, conditions or actual goods. A later report does not automatically displace the earlier one, and a few failed units do not establish the proportion affected across an entire shipment.

2. Separate a technical finding, shipment release and a settlement

Check whether the contract makes the report a payment milestone, permission to load, final acceptance of specified characteristics, or a broader allocation of quality risk. Review any statement signed when the goods were released. The words and circumstances matter, including whether a particular known deviation was expressly accepted or settled.

An instruction to measure and photograph goods is not necessarily authority to vary specifications or compromise a legal claim. Equally, a buyer cannot assume that every approval by its nominated representative is ineffective. Review the appointment, communicated authority and the buyer’s subsequent conduct under the applicable law. The inspection company’s own liability, if alleged, requires a separate review of its engagement and evidence.

A reservation of rights should identify what remains open. It cannot unilaterally undo an agreed settlement or change the sale contract. Where the dispute is about paying before inspection, use the separate final-payment and inspection guide.

3. Under the CISG, later discovery and later occurrence are different

First establish whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods applies. Review the parties’ places of business, transaction, relevant dates, contractual exclusions or variations and State declarations. China’s entry into force was 1 January 1988; its declaration concerning Article 1(1)(b) must be considered. See the official treaty status. Article 6 permits contractual variation subject to its terms; questions of validity and representation may require other applicable law.

Article 35 addresses conformity to the contract. Under Article 36(1), nonconformity existing when risk passes can engage the seller’s liability even if it becomes apparent later. Article 36(2) also addresses later nonconformity attributable to a breach of the seller’s obligations, including an applicable guarantee. Therefore, discovery after a passed inspection is not enough either to defeat a claim or to prove supplier responsibility. Evidence must distinguish an existing manufacturing problem from transport, storage, installation or use-related causes.

Examination and notice remain separate. Articles 38–39 require appropriate examination and a notice identifying the nonconformity within the applicable period; Article 39 also contains a two-year outer limit from actual handover, subject to its guarantee exception. A buyer cannot simply wait until that outer limit. Article 40 restricts reliance on Articles 38–39 where its conditions concerning the seller’s undisclosed knowledge are proved. Source: official CISG text, Articles 4, 6 and 35–40.

4. PRC domestic sales law requires its own analysis

Where PRC domestic sales law governs the issue, Civil Code Articles 615 and 617 address agreed quality and liability for nonconformity. Article 611 separates risk allocation from liability for nonconforming performance. Under Articles 620–622, agreed inspection and notice periods matter; a period too short for complete examination, given the goods and trade usage, is treated as a period for apparent defects. This is not an automatic extension for a problem that was already discoverable.

Article 623 concerns a specific situation: without an agreed inspection period, a signed delivery or confirmation document listing quantity, model and specifications creates a rebuttable presumption concerning quantity and apparent-defect examination. A third-party pre-shipment report should not automatically be equated with that statutory situation. If a clause limits defect liability, Article 618 prevents the seller from relying on it where intentional or grossly negligent nondisclosure of defects meets that provision’s conditions. Review the clause and facts, rather than declaring every final-inspection clause invalid.

Sources: Civil Code Articles 611, 615, 617–618 and 620–623; effective date of 1 January 2021. Applicable law and transitional rules still require transaction-specific review.

5. Build a comparison file linking both inspections to the shipment

Question	Useful material
What was actually approved?	Controlling specifications, inspection instructions, full report, exclusions and release communications.
Are these the same goods?	Batch and serial references, sample labels, loading records, seals and chain of custody.
Why did results differ?	Original test data, methods, conditions, photographs and an evidence-based explanation of possible causes.
Were rights preserved in time?	Discovery chronology, specific notice to the seller, receipt evidence, replies and proposals for joint examination.

Preserve representative samples before repair, return or disposal where practicable. Invite a documented joint inspection when appropriate, while taking necessary safety and loss-mitigation measures. If testing is incomplete, notify the observed problem promptly, distinguish facts from hypotheses and supplement the evidence. Contacting only the inspector may not satisfy a notice obligation owed to the seller.

6. Select the remedy after assessing the evidence

An arguable defect claim is not an automatic right to reject everything or obtain a full refund. Assess the applicable requirements for repair, price reduction or return and refund, together with payment obligations, causation and loss. Claims against carriers, inspectors or insurers and product-safety obligations must be reviewed separately.

For a specific China-related dispute, provide the seller’s registered Chinese name, contract and inspection clause, full reports, shipment and discovery dates, amount at issue and notices exchanged. An initial review can identify the missing evidence and possible negotiation or dispute-resolution route. See China trade dispute legal services or contact Jianxing Pan at panjianxing46@gmail.com. Service scope and fees are confirmed before engagement; recovery and completion dates are not guaranteed.

General legal information, not advice on an individual transaction. Cover: AI-generated conceptual illustration, not an actual client, case or shipment photograph.

Jianxing Pan, Attorney · Partner, Beijing Chang’an Law Firm · Beijing/Shenzhen.