A first-instance ruling by Peru’s judiciary has introduced a new layer of legal and regulatory uncertainty around the Chinese-built Megaport of Chancay, a project widely regarded as one of the most strategically consequential infrastructure developments on South America’s Pacific seaboard.

The decision, issued by the First Constitutional Court of Lima on January 29, partially upheld an amparo (constitutional protection) action brought by Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú (CSPCP) and ordered the national transport infrastructure regulator, Ositrán, to refrain from exercising its supervisory, regulatory, inspection, and sanctioning powers over the terminal’s operations.

The ruling preserved only a limited pathway for tariff intervention, contingent upon prior determinations by Peru’s competition authority, Indecopi. Cosco Shipping’s counsel, Ramiro Portocarrero, has argued that tariff regulation within Peru’s port legislation functions as a residual mechanism, activated only when market forces fail to discipline pricing behaviour.

Although the judgment is not final and Ositrán has announced its intention to appeal, the dispute has triggered debate extending well beyond regulatory law. At issue are the governance model of a privately financed but systemically significant port, the interpretation of Peru’s port legislation, and the broader geopolitical implications of China’s expanding role in regional logistics networks.

Ositrán, the body responsible for supervising infrastructure of public use, characterised the legal action as unprecedented. Its president, Verónica Zambrano, publicly argued that the ruling risks creating a differentiated regime for a single operator providing services to the public while remaining outside the regulator’s standard oversight framework.

In statements to RPP, Zambrano warned that the decision constrains Ositrán’s ability to verify compliance with user-protection standards, including transparency obligations, non-discrimination principles, and formalised complaints mechanisms.

The court, however, adopted a narrower constitutional interpretation. According to details of the ruling published by OjoPúblico, the judge noted that the terminal’s classification as “private property, public use” does not convert it into a public-domain asset nor automatically subject it to the full regulatory regime applied to concessioned infrastructure.

Drawing upon Article 60 of Peru’s Constitution, which safeguards freedom of private enterprise, the judgment held that infrastructure developed entirely with private capital and absent a state concession contract must be subject only to expressly defined legal interventions.

Cosco Shipping’s representatives have framed the dispute as one of regulatory competence rather than state exclusion. In statements, company officials stressed that multiple state entities maintain a permanent operational presence at Chancay, including the National Port Authority (APN), customs authorities (Sunat), maritime authorities (Dicapi), and environmental regulators.

The significance of the dispute becomes clearer when examined through the port’s projected operational profile. Chancay has been conceived not as a niche terminal but as a large-scale deep-water facility designed to accommodate mainline container traffic rather than solely feeder services.

Public project documentation and company disclosures have consistently referenced a phased capacity model, with early-stage design parameters typically described in industry terms rather than fixed throughput guarantees. Across multiple official presentations, Chancay’s long-term design vision has been associated with annual container handling capacity measured in the order of one million TEUs or more, subject to commercial ramp-up and subsequent expansion stages. Such volumes would place the terminal among the largest container gateways on the Pacific coast of South America.

Crucially, Chancay’s engineering configuration has been promoted as capable of receiving large post-Panamax and New Panamax container vessels, and potentially even Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCVs), depending on berth allocation and operational constraints. This capability derives primarily from its deep-water design and absence of some of the draught limitations that periodically affect Callao.

While Callao remains Peru’s dominant port, its container terminals operate within physical and navigational parameters that can impose restrictions on vessel size and draught at certain tidal conditions. Chancay’s planned draught depth, widely reported in industry discussions as exceeding that of Callao’s conventional berths, is strategically relevant because draught depth directly influences which classes of vessels can call without operational penalties. Even modest differences in permissible draught can affect shipping line network decisions, port rotation patterns, and freight economics.

Yet port competitiveness is not determined solely by maritime specifications. The economic viability of Chancay will depend heavily on hinterland connectivity and cargo aggregation dynamics.

The terminal’s strategic rationale has been closely linked to its potential role as a logistics node serving central Peru’s industrial and mining regions. Discussions surrounding the project have referenced integration with road infrastructure corridors connecting Lima’s metropolitan region with inland production zones, as well as longer-term possibilities for rail connectivity.

Although definitive rail implementation timelines remain uncertain, the logic is clear: deep-water access without efficient inland transport linkages limits a port’s systemic impact.

Should Chancay achieve effective corridor integration, the terminal could influence routing decisions for mineral exports, agro-industrial shipments, and containerised trade flows. Peru’s export structure — heavily tilted toward mining products — means that even partial cargo diversion can carry macro-logistical implications.

Estimating the precise share of Peruvian exports that could be affected is inherently speculative at this stage. However, from a structural standpoint, any port capable of handling large container volumes and bulk cargo at scale introduces the possibility of rebalancing national logistics patterns, particularly if shipping lines adjust direct Asia services.

The relevance here is not immediate displacement of Callao but the introduction of an alternative gateway with different cost structures, vessel compatibility, and operational efficiencies. In shipping network economics, the emergence of a new deep-water hub can alter bargaining dynamics between ports and carriers, influencing freight rates and service configurations across the region.

One of the ruling’s most consequential implications concerns regulatory symmetry within Peru’s port system. Concessioned terminals — operating on publicly owned assets — remain subject to comprehensive supervisory frameworks governing tariffs, investment obligations, and service quality.

A privately developed deep-water terminal operating under materially different oversight conditions may introduce distortions affecting competitive neutrality and regulatory predictability.

For infrastructure investors, the central risk is not simply reduced oversight but legal fragmentation of regulatory regimes governing comparable assets.

Parallel to judicial developments, Peru’s Comptroller General (Contraloría) has announced a compliance control review into alleged irregularities associated with the Chancay project. As reported by Gestión, the audit will examine contractual amendments and administrative decisions, including the controversial issue of exclusivity rights granted by the APN.

In large-scale infrastructure projects, contractual modifications are common. But frequent or substantively transformative amendments may increase perceptions of governance fragility. Institutional investors and risk analysts typically view such dynamics through the lens of procedural predictability, administrative consistency, and potential litigation exposure. The Contraloría’s intervention therefore adds a distinct layer of institutional risk independent of the regulatory dispute itself.

The geopolitical dimension of the Chancay dispute extends beyond ownership or nationality. Ports are not merely commercial facilities; they are critical infrastructure shaping trade dependencies, strategic access, and economic influence.

A foreign state-linked operator controlling a major logistics gateway while operating outside the host country’s principal economic regulator generates sensitivities common to strategic infrastructure debates worldwide. The issue is less about sovereignty in a formal sense and more about institutional leverage and governance visibility.

Strategic influence over logistics chains typically arises through operational centrality rather than legal control alone. If Chancay were to become indispensable to certain trade flows, the port’s operator would acquire indirect structural leverage within Peru’s external trade architecture. Regulatory exclusion, even if legally justified, amplifies perceptions of asymmetry because it weakens conventional state oversight channels.

This dynamic explains why infrastructure disputes of this nature frequently trigger political and geopolitical interpretations. The combination of Chinese state-linked capital, large-scale maritime infrastructure, and constrained domestic regulatory authority fits into broader global debates observed in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Importantly, foreign-operated infrastructure remains embedded within host-state sovereignty frameworks. Customs enforcement, taxation, labour regulation, maritime authority jurisdiction, and environmental compliance mechanisms remain intact. However, regulatory visibility — particularly regarding service standards, pricing structures, and user protections — becomes politically salient when a project attains national strategic significance.

Ositrán’s appeal ensures continued judicial scrutiny, with possible escalation to Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal. The outcome will shape not only Chancay’s regulatory environment but also precedents governing privately developed infrastructure of public use.

Irrespective of the final ruling, the Chancay dispute illustrates how infrastructure governance, legal interpretation, and geopolitical perception increasingly converge around logistics assets that reshape regional trade architecture.