Freight Doubled Yet Still Rejected? The Truth Why Logistics Companies Dare Not Handle Mobile Phones to Mexico

In Mexico’s mobile phone import and export trade, an abnormal phenomenon has become increasingly prominent: even if shippers are willing to double or even triple the freight cost, many logistics companies still explicitly refuse to accept mobile phone shipping orders to Mexico. In the logistics industry, high freight costs usually mean high profits, and under normal circumstances, logistics companies would actively compete for such high-premium orders. However, when it comes to mobile phone transportation to Mexico, why do so many logistics companies “refuse to make money” and choose to stay away? Behind this is not simply “trouble avoidance,” but multiple insurmountable dilemmas involving policies, costs, risks, and more. This article will deeply analyze the five core truths why logistics companies dare not handle mobile phones to Mexico, uncovering the industry pain points behind this seemingly abnormal phenomenon.

I. Truth 1: “High-Pressure” Mexican Customs Policies – Compliance Costs Far Exceed Freight Profits

Mexico’s supervision policies on imported mobile phones have long evolved from “routine supervision” to “high-pressure control.” In this policy environment, logistics companies’ compliance costs have risen exponentially. Even if freight costs are doubled, they can hardly cover the investment and risks in compliance-related links.

1. “Volatile and Stringent” Policies – Compliance Thresholds Continue to Rise

In recent years, Mexican Customs has accelerated the frequency of policy adjustments for mobile phone imports, and each adjustment has moved toward stricter requirements. The “Electronic Product Import Traceability System” implemented in 2024 mandates that logistics companies must enter complete “full-life-cycle information” for each imported mobile phone, including manufacturer details, component sources, validity period of NOM certification, and the binding relationship between IMEI codes and the recipient’s RFC number. Any missing or incorrect information will result in cargo detention.

Furthermore, the “Customs Pre-Declaration System” newly introduced in early 2025 stipulates that detailed declaration documents for mobile phone shipments must be submitted to Mexican Customs 72 hours before dispatch, and these documents must pass AI review by the customs system. If the review fails, transportation cannot be arranged. This means logistics companies need to invest significant human and material resources to collect documents from shippers in advance and assign dedicated personnel to track the customs review progress. A single oversight could lead to delays in the entire shipment.

What troubles logistics companies even more is the “ambiguity” in the interpretation of Mexican customs policies. For the same type of mobile phone products, different customs ports or officials may have completely different judgment standards. For example, a logistics company once handled a shipment of domestic mobile phones with detachable batteries, which cleared customs smoothly at Mexico City International Airport Customs. However, the same batch of mobile phones with identical specifications was deemed “non-compliant with battery safety standards” when transported to Manzanillo Port, resulting in 20 days of detention. During this period, the logistics company had to cover all demurrage and warehousing fees. To address such discrepancies in policy interpretation, logistics companies have to hire local professional customs lawyers to provide policy consulting services for each mobile phone shipment, costing an additional \(3,000-\)5,000 per shipment—far exceeding the additional profits from doubled freight.

2. “Severe Penalties” for Violations – A Single Mistake May Halt Operations

Mexican Customs imposes “severe penalties” for violations in mobile phone transportation. Once red lines are crossed, logistics companies face not only fines but also the risk of business suspension. According to Article 128 of Mexico’s Customs Law, if a logistics company handles mobile phone orders involving “false declaration information” or “missing key certifications,” Customs has the right to impose a fine of “3-5 times the cargo value” and suspend the company’s Mexican customs declaration qualification for 6-12 months. For small and medium-sized logistics companies, such penalties are almost “fatal blows.”

In 2024, a well-known international logistics company was investigated by Mexican Customs for handling a shipment of counterfeit mobile phones without NOM certification. In the end, the company not only paid a $2 million fine (4 times the cargo value) but also had its Mexican branch’s customs declaration qualification suspended for 9 months. During this period, it could not accept any shipping orders for goods imported into Mexico, directly causing its market share in Mexico to plummet from 15% to 3%. Such cases are widely circulated in the industry, making other logistics companies wary of mobile phone transportation to Mexico—even doubled freight cannot offset the huge losses from a single violation. It is safer to refuse orders than to take risks.

II. Truth 2: “Uncontrollable Risks” in the Entire Transportation Chain – Claim Costs Devour Profits

The risks of mobile phone transportation to Mexico go far beyond those of ordinary cargo transportation. From the moment goods leave the shipper’s warehouse to their delivery to the recipient, the entire chain is plagued by “uncontrollable” risks. The claim costs resulting from these risks often devour the profits from doubled freight, and may even push logistics companies into losses.

1. “Frequent Robberies” in Border and Inland Transportation – No Guarantee for Cargo Safety

The security situation in some border areas and inland cities of Mexico poses significant risks to mobile phone transportation. In U.S.-Mexico border cities such as Tijuana and Juárez, robberies targeting logistics vehicles are frequent, and vehicles transporting high-value mobile phones are prime targets for criminals. According to statistics from the Mexican Logistics Association, in 2024, the robbery rate of logistics vehicles transporting mobile phones in Mexican border areas reached 12%, meaning on average 1 out of every 8 mobile phone shipments was robbed.

In the event of a robbery, logistics companies must not only compensate the shipper for cargo losses but also bear additional costs such as vehicle repairs and staff compensation. A domestic logistics company once had a shipment of iPhone phones worth \(500,000 intercepted by armed robbers while being transported from Mexico City to Guadalajara, with all goods stolen. In the end, the company compensated the shipper \)500,000, paid \(80,000 for vehicle repairs, and \)20,000 for security personnel’s medical expenses, totaling \(600,000 in losses. The freight for this shipment was only \)50,000; even if doubled to \(100,000, it was far from covering the \)600,000 loss. To reduce robbery risks, some logistics companies have tried hiring armed security personnel for escorts, but this increases the transportation cost of each shipment by 15%-20%, further compressing profit margins and ultimately leading to “no profit even with doubled freight.”

2. “High Damage Rate” – Endless After-Sales Claim Disputes

Mobile phones are precision electronic products, and components such as screens and motherboards are easily damaged during transportation. The “rough handling” in Mexico’s logistics and transportation links further pushes up the damage rate. On one hand, some Mexican logistics companies use outdated loading and unloading equipment, lack professional tools for electronic product handling, and their staff operate non-standardly, often “throwing goods” or “stacking recklessly.” On the other hand, Mexico’s domestic transportation roads are in poor condition, with many bumpy sections, making goods vulnerable to severe vibrations during transportation and causing internal component damage.

Statistics show that the average damage rate of mobile phones transported via ordinary logistics channels in Mexico is 8%-10%, far higher than the global average of 3%-5%. For each damaged mobile phone, logistics companies must not only replace it with a new one for the shipper but also bear the round-trip transportation costs. Worse still, some shippers refuse to pay freight on the grounds of “cargo damage” and even sue logistics companies for “indirect losses” (such as sales losses caused by delivery delays). A logistics company once handled a shipment of 1,000 Android phones, and 95 of them were damaged beyond use due to transportation issues. In addition to compensating for 95 new phones (valued at \(190,000), the shipper refused to pay the \)100,000 freight on the grounds of “delivery delay” and filed a lawsuit demanding an additional \(200,000 in compensation. This dispute lasted 6 months, and the logistics company ultimately suffered a total loss of \)490,000. Even if the freight for this shipment was doubled, it would only be $200,000—making it a “loss-making deal.”

III. Truth 3: “Scarce and Expensive” Local Logistics Resources – Out-of-Control Last-Mile Delivery Costs

The “pain points” of mobile phone transportation to Mexico lie not only in cross-border links but also in the domestic last-mile delivery phase. Due to the scarcity and high cost of high-quality local logistics resources in Mexico, last-mile delivery costs often spiral out of control. Even if cross-border freight is doubled, it can hardly cover the overall costs.

1. “Shortage of High-Quality Local Logistics Providers” – High Cooperation Costs

The number of local logistics providers in Mexico with professional mobile phone delivery capabilities is limited, and they are mainly concentrated in major cities such as Mexico City and Guadalajara. High-quality logistics resources in small and medium-sized cities are extremely scarce. These high-quality local logistics providers (such as Estafeta and Redpack) leverage their comprehensive delivery networks and professional electronic product delivery services to maintain a “supply shortage” in the market, imposing harsh requirements on partners and charging high cooperation costs.

On one hand, local logistics providers require logistics companies to pay high “cooperation deposits,” usually \(500,000-\)1,000,000, with a refund cycle as long as 2-3 years. On the other hand, their delivery fees are far higher than those for other types of goods. For example, the delivery fee per mobile phone within Mexico City is \(3-\)5, 2-3 times that of ordinary daily necessities. Additionally, local logistics providers demand “priority settlement,” requiring logistics companies to prepay 30%-50% of the delivery fees in advance—exerting significant pressure on the cash flow of logistics companies. A domestic logistics company paid an \(800,000 deposit to cooperate with Estafeta, and the delivery fee per mobile phone reached \)4. Last-mile delivery costs alone accounted for 30% of the total cost of each shipment. Even with doubled cross-border freight, it was impossible to increase the overall profit margin to the industry average (5%-8%).

2. “Many Delivery Blind Spots” in Remote Areas – Endless Additional Costs

Mexico has a vast territory and unbalanced regional development. Many remote areas (such as Chiapas and Oaxaca in the south) are “delivery blind spots” with no coverage from high-quality local logistics providers. To deliver mobile phones to these areas, logistics companies have to adopt a “transshipment delivery” model: first transporting goods to nearby major cities, then entrusting local small logistics providers for secondary delivery. This model not only extends delivery time (usually 3-5 days longer than direct delivery) but also incurs a series of additional costs, such as transshipment warehousing fees, secondary loading/unloading fees, and service fees for small logistics providers.

Worse still, the service quality of these small logistics providers is unreliable, often resulting in delivery delays and cargo loss—yet logistics companies must bear full responsibility to shippers. A logistics company once needed to deliver a batch of mobile phones to Chiapas in southern Mexico via the transshipment route “Mexico City-Tuxtla Gutiérrez-Chiapas.” During this process, it incurred \(2,000 in transshipment warehousing fees and \)1,500 in secondary loading/unloading fees. Additionally, 10 mobile phones were lost due to the small logistics provider’s negligence, forcing the company to compensate the shipper \(20,000. The total additional last-mile delivery costs for this shipment reached \)23,500, accounting for 40% of the total shipment cost. Even with doubled cross-border freight, it was impossible to fill this cost “gap.”

IV. Truth 4: “Distorted” Market Competition – Low-Price Internal Rivalry Squeezes Profit Margins

Competition in Mexico’s mobile phone logistics market has long fallen into a state of “distorted” low-price internal rivalry. In this competitive environment, even if freight is doubled, logistics companies’ profit margins are severely squeezed, ultimately leading to “losses upon accepting orders.”

1. “Low-Price Order Snatching” by Small and Medium-Sized Logistics Companies – Disrupting Market Order

Due to the large demand in Mexico’s mobile phone transportation market, a large number of small and medium-sized logistics companies have entered the market in recent years. Lacking sound risk management systems and professional customs clearance capabilities, these companies resort to “low-price order snatching” to compete for orders, pushing freight below cost. For example, for a shipment of 100 mobile phones from Shenzhen, China to Mexico City, the reasonable cost is approximately \(25,000, but some small and medium-sized logistics companies quoted as low as \)18,000 to snatch the order—only 72% of the reasonable cost.

This low-price competition has severely disrupted market order, forcing formal logistics companies to lower their freight rates to avoid losing orders. However, even if freight is doubled from \(18,000 to \)36,000, formal logistics companies can barely cover costs (including compliance costs, risk costs, and last-mile delivery costs) with almost no profit left. Worse still, after accepting orders at low prices, some small and medium-sized logistics companies cut corners to reduce costs, such as “simplifying customs clearance procedures” or “reducing security measures.” In case of problems, they “abscond,” shifting risks to shippers and downstream partners—further deteriorating the market environment and making formal logistics companies more cautious about mobile phone transportation to Mexico.

2. “Price-Cutting Habits” of Shippers – Lack of Risk-Sharing Awareness

In Mexico’s mobile phone logistics market, due to the low-price order snatching by small and medium-sized logistics companies, many shippers have developed a “habit of demanding price cuts.” They not only require logistics companies to offer low freight rates but also put forward a series of unreasonable demands, such as “free insurance,” “free warehousing,” and “compensation for any delay,” while refusing to bear any risks. For example, a shipper demanded a 20% freight reduction when entrusting a logistics company to transport mobile phones, while requiring “100% compensation for total cargo loss” and “5% of freight compensation for each day of delay”—yet refused to pay any additional insurance fees.

This cooperation model of “focusing only on price, ignoring risks” further squeezes logistics companies’ profit margins. In case of cargo loss or delay, logistics companies must bear full compensation responsibility, while shippers take no risk. A logistics company once signed such a cooperation agreement with a shipper. During transportation, the shipment was delayed for 3 days due to a temporary adjustment of Mexican customs policies. The company ultimately had to compensate the shipper 15% of the freight (approximately \(3,000), but the profit from this shipment was only \)2,000—resulting in a $1,000 loss. Faced with such a cooperation environment, even with doubled freight, logistics companies dare not easily accept orders, fearing falling into the dilemma of “earning freight but losing it to compensation.”

V. Truth 5: “Tight” Global Logistics Resources – Low Priority for Mexican Routes

In recent years, global logistics resources have remained tight, especially core resources such as air freight capacity and sea containers. Mexican routes have low priority in global logistics resource allocation, making it difficult for logistics companies to secure capacity for mobile phone transportation. Even with doubled freight, they cannot ensure timely shipment.

1. “Hard-to-Get” Air Freight Capacity – Low Scheduling Priority for Mexican Routes

Affected by global supply chain restructuring and geopolitics, global air freight capacity has been tight, especially on popular routes from China to North America and Europe, where capacity competition is extremely fierce. In terms of capacity allocation, airlines usually prioritize “high-profit, high-stability” goods such as medical equipment and high-end luxury goods. Mobile phone transportation on Mexican routes has low priority in capacity allocation due to high policy risks and long customs clearance cycles.

Even if shippers are willing to double the freight, airlines can hardly guarantee reserved capacity for mobile phone shipments to Mexico. For example, on the eve of Black Friday in November 2024, the utilization rate of air freight capacity from Shenzhen, China to Mexico City reached over 98%. Airlines prioritized capacity for daily necessities orders from large e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Walmart. Many logistics companies’ mobile phone shipments to Mexico could not secure capacity even with doubled freight, forcing them to delay shipments and leading to a large number of order cancellations by shippers. A logistics company had 10 mobile phone shipment orders to Mexico canceled by shippers due to failure to secure air freight capacity, resulting in not only lost freight revenue but also $500,000 in compensation for breach of contract.

2. “Shortage and Price Hikes” of Sea Containers – Uncontrollable Transportation Costs

In terms of sea freight, container shortages have long been a problem at major Mexican ports (such as Manzanillo Port and Veracruz Port), especially “high-cube containers” (HC containers) suitable for transporting electronic products, which are “hard to find.” To obtain containers, logistics companies have to pay high “container sourcing fees,” usually 1.5-2 times the price of ordinary containers. At the same time, Mexican ports face severe congestion, with containers staying in ports for an average of 7-10 days—far longer than the global average of 3-5 days. This significantly extends sea freight cycles and incurs high demurrage and container detention fees.

A logistics company once transported 500 mobile phones to Mexico via sea freight. To obtain high-cube containers, it paid a \(20,000 container sourcing fee (compared to only \)8,000 for ordinary containers). Additionally, due to port