Gangavaram is a separate AP non-major port near Visakhapatnam. The Ministry's 2024–25 statistics list its cargo separately from Visakhapatnam Port Authority and from Kakinada or Krishnapatnam. Spatial proximity does not merge legal operators or statistics. A map should show two distinct northern-coast points or use an inset if the points are too close at state scale.

The AP Maritime Policy treats Gangavaram among existing non-major or private port settings for its shipyard and cluster models. It does not mean every shipyard proposal there is already open. An exam might give both “Visakhapatnam” and “Gangavaram” as options: the former is the centrally governed major port, while the latter is a state-category non-major port. Cargo tonnage needs a financial year and reporting unit before comparison.

Worked example: Gangavaram is near Visakhapatnam, but it is not another berth of the Visakhapatnam Port Authority merely because the map symbols are close. Study them as separate ports with their own governance and cargo records. On a north-to-south coastline exercise, place both without merging their numbers. A combined city total would require an explicitly defined aggregation.

Active recall: Why should Gangavaram cargo not be added to a Visakhapatnam Port Authority figure without an explicit combined-total question?