>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Zhejiang Textiles Import & Export Group Ltd. v. Taiwan Uniglory Marine Corporation (Dispute over Delivery of Goods without the Original Bill of Lading under Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea)
浙江纺织公司诉台湾立荣公司海上货物运输合同无单放货纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Maritime -->Maritime
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 09-04-2003
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance

Zhejiang Textiles Import & Export Group Ltd. v. Taiwan Uniglory Marine Corporation (Dispute over Delivery of Goods without the Original Bill of Lading under Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea)
(Dispute over Delivery of Goods without the Original Bill of Lading under Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea)
浙江纺织公司诉台湾立荣公司海上货物运输合同无单放货纠纷案

Zhejiang Textiles Import & Export Group Ltd. v. Taiwan Uniglory Marine Corporation
(Dispute over Delivery of Goods without the Original Bill of Lading under Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea)@#

[Summary]@#
1. The“shipper” mentioned in Article 42 (3) of the Maritime Law may refer to a  party to a carriage of goods by sea contract, orthe delivery party. A bill of lading is merely a proof of the carriage of goodsby sea contract, and not the only evidence. If the party of a bill of lading isinconsistent with that of carriage of goods by sea contract, in absence of awritten contract, the people's court may determine the shipper of a contractfor carriage of goods by sea according to the actual situation of obligationperformance. @#

2. If the shipper cannot collect payment of the goods because ofdelivery without the original bill of lading, the carrier shall be liable topay damages to the shipper. Where a shipper brings a lawsuit against thecarrier at the loading port on the strength of an original copy of bill oflading, which is not in circulation yet, there is no such an issue that a thirdparty may demand for the cargo with a bill of lading under the carriage ofgoods by sea contract, so there is no need to ascertain whether the holder of thebill of lading has the right to take delivery of the cargo.@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Zhejiang Textiles Import & Export Group Ltd., located at Zhonghe Mid Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province.@#
Legal Representative: He Zhiliang, general manager of the Company.@#
Defendant: Uniglory Marine Corporation, located at Minsheng East Road, Taipei, Taiwan Province.@#
Legal Representative: Luo Yaohuang, board chairman of the Company.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
Zhejiang Textiles Import & Export Group Ltd. (plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as Zhejiang Textiles Company) brought a lawsuit with Shanghai Maritime Court due to the dispute with Uniglory Marine Corporation (defendant, hereinafter referred to as Uniglory Corporation) over the delivery of goods without the original bill of lading under a contract on carriage of goods by sea.@#
Zhejiang Textiles Company alleged: Zhejiang Textiles Company delivered 21 batches of school uniforms to Uniglory Corporation for carriage, but did not receive the payment by then. It was found from investigation that Uniglory Corporation had delivered those goods to someone else who did not show the original bill of lading. Zhejiang Textiles Company was both the owner of and the actual shipper of the goods. It was due to an agreement on trade that Zhejiang Textiles Company did not list itself as the shipper under the bill of lading. The bill of lading issued by Uniglory Corporation to Zhejiang Textiles Company was returned by the bank after being sent by Zhejiang Textiles Company abroad by collection because it was received by none. Therefore, Zhejiang Textiles Company held these bills of lading justly and lawfully, and was entitled to claim against Uniglory Corporation in the identity of the shipper for the losses incurred from the delivery of goods without the original bill of lading. Zhejiang Textiles Company pleaded the court to order Uniglory Corporation to compensate USD 2,602,562 of loss in the payment for goods to Zhejiang Textiles Company, 3,111,486.35 yuan of loss in tax rebate (unless otherwise particularly indicated, all monetary unit shall be in Renminbi), 78,076.86 yuan of loss in interest subsidy, 2,555,234.67 yuan of loss in interest, 600,000 yuan of lawyer's retainer, and 20,000 yuan of lawyer's travel expenses.@#
......

 

浙江纺织公司诉台湾立荣公司海上货物运输合同无单放货纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
一、海商法四十二条第三项规定的托运人,既可以是海上货物运输合同的缔约人,也可以是交货人。提单只是海上货物运输合同存在的证明,而且不是惟一的证明。当提单主体与海上货物运输合同主体不一致时,在没有书面合同的情况下,人民法院可以根据履行义务的实际情况来确定海上货物运输合同中的托运人。@#
二、因无单放货使托运人不能收回货款,承运人应当向托运人承担赔偿责任。托运人在启运港持未经贸易流转的正本提单起诉承运人的,不存在海上货物运输合同关系中可以凭提单向承运人主张提货权利的第三人,不需要解决提单持有人有无提货权的问题。@#
@#
原告:浙江省纺织品进出口集团公司,住所地:浙江省杭州市中河中路。@#
法定代表人:何志亮,该公司总经理。@#
被告:立荣海运股份有限公司,住所地:台湾省台北市民生东中路。@#
法定代表人:骆耀煌,该公司董事长。@#
@#
原告浙江省纺织品进出口集团公司(以下简称浙江纺织公司)因与被告立荣海运股份有限公司(以下简称台湾立荣公司)发生海上货物运输合同无单放货纠纷,向上海海事法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称:原告交被告承运的21批次学生校服,至今未收到货款。经查,被告已将这些货物未凭正本提单就交付给他人。原告既是这些货物的所有权人,也是这些货物的实际托运人。只是基于贸易方面的约定,原告才没有把自己列为提单上的托运人。被告给原告签发的提单,原告通过托收方式寄往国外后,因无人赎单而被银行退回。因此,原告现在是正当合法地持有这些提单,有权以托运人资格向被告主张无单放货造成的损失。请求判令被告赔偿原告的货款损失 2 602 562美元,退税损失 3111 486.35元(以下未特别注明的货币单位均为人民币),贴息损失 78 076.86元,利息损失 2 555 234.67元,律师费用60万元,律师差旅费用2万元。@#
原告提交以下证据:@#
1.售货确认书传真件2份、信用证原件4份、2001年8月国外货物买方K公司的传真,用以证明浙江纺织公司是涉案货物出口方以及涉案货物的贸易条件、价格;@#
2.国内购销合同11份、付款凭证、增值税专用发票、出口货物专用税收缴款书、退税文件、退税联、贴息文件、利息计算公式等,用以证明浙江纺织公司是通过签订合同、支付货款,从国内生产厂商处取得涉案货物所有权,以及涉案货物在国内的收购价格、税率、应退税款、退税金额、贴息和利息;@#
3.货物外销发票、外汇核销单、货运代理人证明、运费发票、付款凭证,用以证明涉案货物的数量、外销价格、运输环节和运费支付情况;@#
4.生产厂商证明、车队证明、台湾立荣公司的装箱单、声明、快递凭证以及船龄证明、质检证书,用以证明涉案货物是按信用证规定出货并已交台湾立荣公司承运;@#
5.21套货物正本提单,用以证明涉案货物有学生校服121 400套,外销价2 602562美元,国内含税收购价21 414 348.25元;并证明浙江纺织公司是这些货物正本提单的持有人;@#
6.外国银行的电传、函件和交通银行杭州分行的退单函、说明函,用以证明21套货物正本提单是因无人赎单而被外国银行退回,浙江纺织公司现持有这些提单正当合法;@#
7.律师费、差旅费单据,用以证明浙江纺织公司为诉讼支付的相应费用。@#
被告台湾立荣公司辩称:法律中没有实际托运人这一概念,司法实践中也未见有此认定。是不是托运人,必须看提单记载。不否认原告曾经享有涉案货物所有权,但在涉案提单签发后,由于提单中记载的托运人不是原告,原告对涉案货物不再享有所有权,因此不能以托运人主体资格对被告提起本案诉讼。涉案提单记载的收货人是凭伊拉克高等教育和科研部(以下简称伊高教部)指示,原告现持有的提单背面均未经指示,因此其提单不合法。被告有证据证明,涉案提单中的货物已经按提单指示交付给伊高教部。被告履行了涉案提单项下承运人的义务,无论提单归谁持有,都不应承担错误交付货物的责任。原告未收到相关货款,是其在贸易合同中的轻率、疏忽行为所致。这是贸易合同项下原告与他人的争议,与被告无关,其诉讼请求应当驳回。@#
被告提交以下证据:@#
1.订舱单、运费发票、货运代理人上海三星国际货运有限公司(以下简称三星货代公司)向台湾立荣公司出具的涉案货物托运订舱过程说明、三星货代公司与台湾立荣公司之间关于修改提单内容的传真往来、浙江纺织公司在同一期间出运其他货物的四份订舱单及提单,用以证明在涉案货物托运和单据签发过程中,浙江纺织公司与台湾立荣公司之间未发生任何联系,涉案提单的托运人并非浙江纺织公司,浙江纺织公司一旦放弃托运人身份,其提单项下权利义务也应随之放弃,无权以托运人身份向台湾立荣公司索赔;@#
2.经公证、认证的伊高教部收货证明,用以证明台湾立荣公司已完成涉案货物的全部运输义务。@#
3.法律意见书,用以证明有法学专家认为,从法律角度看,浙江纺织公司不能以台湾立荣公司无单放货为由请求赔偿。@#
法庭主持了质证、认证。经质证、认证,上海海事法院查明:@#
2000年7月31日、同年8月7日,原告浙江纺织公司与案外人K公司以传真方式分别签订了各20万套男、女生校服的售货确认书,嗣后作为该项贸易不可撤销可转让信用证的被转让受益人,收到了案外人 HBZ FINANCE LIMITED出具的 4份信用证项下文件。信用证项下文件规定,托运人为AL HOSAN FOR IMPORT AND EXPORT/AL FARIS FOR IMPORT,收货人为凭伊高教部指示,货物标签上需显示AL HOSAN或 AL FARIS或 FAST根据买方安排。@#
原告浙江纺织公司按照售货确认书的要求,通过签订购销合同和全额支付国内含税收购价款,从国内东阳市时装三厂有限公司等9家厂商处收购了涉案各类服装。在信用证规定的货物出运期限及信用证有效期已过的情况下,浙江纺织公司仍在启运港通过实外人华海国际货运有限公司--鸿海国际船务货运公司--上海外联发国际货运有限公司以及三星货代公司的层层代理,分21批次向被告台湾立荣公司订舱出运男生校服86 900套、女生校服34 500套。这些货物的外销价合计2 602562美元,国内含税收购价合计21 414348.25元。按信用证要求,浙江纺织公司对出运货物履行了出具声明、船龄证明、货物质检等手续并支付了海运费后,通过前述各货运代理环节取得台湾立荣公司的代理人--上海联合国际船舶代理有限公司签发的21套正本海运提单,这些提单上的收货人均为凭伊高教部指示。在庭审中,台湾立荣公司确认其已收取了相关海运费。@#
涉案货物出运后,原告浙江纺织公司将全套贸易单证通过交通银行杭州分行向HBZ FINANCE LIMITED托收,因无人赎单,全套贸易单证最终由该行退还浙江纺织公司,退单背面均没有伊高教部的指示背书。庭审中,被告台湾立荣公司确认其已将涉案货物运抵伊拉克并交付给该国政府指定的伊拉克国家水运公司,由后者向伊高教部交付所有货物,故涉案货物的正本海运提单均未收回。@#
本案争议焦点是:提单上托运人一栏中未列名的人能否以托运人主体资格提起本案诉讼?台湾立荣公司应否承担无单放货责任?无单放货引起的经济损失应当如何认定?@#
上海海事法院认为:@#
涉案提单背面相关条款约定:任何因提单而产生的纠纷和索赔适用承运人(本案被告台湾立荣公司)所选择的法庭和法律,这些法庭和法律可以是承运人主要营业地,或者装货或交付地,或者装船或卸货港所在地的法庭和法律。本案确定由上海海事法院行使管辖权后,双方当事人特别是台湾立荣公司明确表示,愿选择《海商法》、《中华人民共和国合同法》(以下简称)《合同法》解决本案争议。为尊重争议双方这一选择,确定《海商法》、《合同法》为界定争议双方权利义务的准据法。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥900.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese