Start with the agreed price, not the accusation
This dispute usually starts with a price that looks attractive. The supplier confirms the goods, gives a pro forma invoice, asks for payment, and only later says the original price did not include the real freight cost, DDP fee, customs cost, packaging charge, warehouse fee or "platform handling" fee.
When a buyer sends me this kind of file, I do not begin with the word fraud. I begin with the documents. What exactly was quoted? Was the price described as total, final, delivered, door to door or DDP? Was there a named destination? Did the supplier issue a pro forma invoice or payment request after confirming that shipping was included? And, after receiving the money, is the supplier now refusing either to ship or to refund unless the buyer pays more?
The answer is rarely in one perfect contract. It is usually in a quotation, invoice, purchase order, payment request, email thread, WhatsApp or WeChat messages, product page, platform order and the shipping line in the invoice. A vague sentence such as "we arrange shipping" is weaker than "DDP to Sydney warehouse included in total price USD 8,000". The difference matters, because the first sounds like assistance and the second sounds like a price term.
DDP, freight and the legal character of the dispute
Incoterms are not decoration. They are shorthand for allocating tasks, costs and risks in an international sale. The International Chamber of Commerce describes Incoterms 2020 as rules used to define buyer and seller responsibilities in trade. The U.S. International Trade Administration also explains that Incoterms clarify who pays for and manages shipment, insurance, documentation, customs clearance and related logistics.
If the supplier agreed to DDP to a named place, the buyer normally has a stronger argument that the seller took responsibility for delivery costs up to that place, unless the contract clearly allows later adjustment. If the invoice was EXW or FOB, the position is different. Under those terms, the buyer may have accepted responsibility for parts of the logistics cost. Many small and mid-size suppliers also use "DDP" loosely, meaning a door-to-door courier quote rather than a carefully drafted Incoterms clause. That does not make the buyer helpless, but it makes the surrounding messages important.
It is risky to call every post-payment price increase fraud. A supplier can make a genuine pricing mistake. Freight can change. Product dimensions may be wrong. The buyer may also have misunderstood whether the price included shipping. The case becomes more serious when the supplier gave a clear all-in price, accepted payment, refuses to ship at that price, refuses to refund, and uses the buyer's deposit as leverage to demand more money. At that point, the issue is no longer a simple quotation correction. It may be a breach of contract, a bad-faith negotiation problem, or, in stronger cases, evidence of intentional deception.
I would usually look harder at a case where the supplier invents new fees one by one, refuses to identify the Chinese company, asks for payment to a mismatched account, gives repeated excuses, or has similar complaints from other buyers. I would be more cautious where the supplier is real, the goods exist, and the disagreement is mainly over an unclear freight estimate. Both can be disputes. They are not the same dispute.
Before escalation, preserve leverage
The first 48 hours are often when buyers damage their own position. The goal is not to sound aggressive. The goal is to stop the supplier from turning an unclear file into an even more confusing one.
- Do not pay the extra fee just to "keep the order moving" unless you have decided commercially that the risk is acceptable.
- Do not threaten criminal action before the facts support that route. It may make the supplier defensive without improving recovery.
- Do not rely on voice calls. Get the supplier's new demand and reason in writing.
- Do not accept a vague promise that the extra payment will be "the last fee" unless it is written with the exact delivery obligation.
- Do not delete chat records or send only cropped screenshots if the matter may escalate.
For this kind of dispute, the evidence is usually simple but easy to lose. Preserve the full conversation, not only the angry part at the end.
Evidence checklist
Not every item will exist in every case. These are the materials that usually decide whether the buyer has a credible demand.
Before a lawyer's letter, I usually want to see whether the supplier will put its refusal clearly in writing. A calm message is more useful than a long accusation.
Example wording:
Please confirm in writing whether you refuse to ship the goods under the price and delivery terms confirmed in your pro forma invoice dated [date]. We paid [amount] on [date] based on your confirmation that [shipping/DDP/freight] was included. If you believe an additional [amount] is payable, please identify the contractual basis, provide supporting logistics documents, and confirm whether you will refund our payment if we do not accept the new charge.
This message is not meant to win the argument by itself. It forces the supplier to choose a position: perform, refund, justify the new fee, or openly refuse. That written position is useful if the next step is a lawyer's letter, platform complaint, bank report, arbitration or litigation.
Where Chinese contract law and a demand letter fit
For contracts governed by Chinese law, the PRC Civil Code rules on contract performance and breach are usually relevant. The specific result depends on the contract wording, evidence and dispute forum, but several basic principles matter in practice: parties should perform according to their agreement, a party that fails to perform or performs inconsistently with the contract may bear liability for breach, and remedies can include continued performance, remedial measures, damages, return, price reduction or termination in appropriate cases.
The point is not that every post-payment price increase automatically gives the buyer a full refund. The point is that a supplier who accepted payment on one set of written terms should not be allowed to rewrite the bargain unilaterally without explanation.
A demand letter is useful when the supplier has stopped discussing the merits and is simply holding the order hostage. The letter should not sound theatrical. It should set out the transaction history, the original price and delivery terms, the new demand, the buyer's evidence, the remedy requested, and a deadline.
For a supplier with a real company, real factory and ongoing business, a formal letter from a local Chinese lawyer may change the calculation. The supplier understands that the buyer has identified the Chinese entity and can escalate locally. For a fake supplier or an insolvent shell, the same letter may not recover money, but it can help clarify whether further spending is rational.
How to decide whether to keep pursuing
Use the claim value as a filter. If the extra fee is small and the supplier is otherwise reliable, a commercial compromise may be cheaper than a dispute. If the order value is meaningful, or the supplier is demanding a large additional payment after receiving a deposit, the buyer should not make the decision emotionally.
- Small orders: preserve evidence, ask for written basis, negotiate a fixed final settlement, and consider a limited demand letter only if proportionate.
- Mid-size orders: verify the supplier entity, review the payment account, send a structured written demand, and consider a lawyer's letter if the supplier refuses to perform or refund.
- Larger orders: assess the contract, dispute clause, supplier assets, platform remedies, bank channel, lawyer's letter, and possible arbitration or litigation before paying more.