>>>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
 
Hyosung (HK) Ltd. v. China Marine Shipping Agency Company, Fangchenggang Branch, et al (Appellate Case on Dispute over Tort Due to Bill of Lading)
晓星香港有限公司诉中国船务代理公司防城港公司等提单侵权纠纷上诉案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 02-27-2003
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance

Hyosung (HK) Ltd. v. China Marine Shipping Agency Company, Fangchenggang Branch, et al (Appellate Case on Dispute over Tort Due to Bill of Lading)
(Appellate Case on Dispute over Tort Due to Bill of Lading)
晓星香港有限公司诉中国船务代理公司防城港公司等提单侵权纠纷上诉案

Hyosung (HK) Ltd. v. China Marine Shipping Agency Company, Fangchenggang Branch, et al
(Appellate Case on Dispute over Tort Due to Bill of Lading)@#
Civil Judgment of the Supreme People's Court@#
No. 27 (2002)@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Plaintiff in the first instance): Hyosung (HK) Ltd. (Former Hyosung Products (HK) Ltd.), domiciled at Suite 2504, 25/F, No. 9, Queen's Road Central, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.@#
Legal Representative: Park Chan Sun, general manager of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Cao Nanjiang, lawyer of Kang Da Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Gao Zicheng, lawyer of Kang Da Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Defendant in the first instance): China Marine Shipping Agency Company, Fangchenggang Branch, domiciled at 2/F, Foreign Trade Building, Fangchenggang City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region.@#
Legal Representative: Ou Enqiang, manager of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Xie Wei, lawyer of Far East Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Defendant in the first instance): Sinotrans Guangxi Company, domiciled at No. 137, Qixing Road, Nanning City, Guangxi.@#
Legal Representative: Ou Enqiang, manager of the Company.@#
Authorized Agent: Xie Wei, lawyer of Far East Law Firm.@#
Authorized Agent: Yun Yi, lawyer of Beijing Tianmao Law Firm.@#
Appellee (Defendant in the first instance): Agricultural Bank of China, Wuzhou Branch, domiciled at No. 62, Bubu Road, Wuzhou City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region.@#
Person-in-Charge: Hua Weiqiang, president.@#
Authorized Agent: Zou Weining, Jun He Law Offices.@#
Authorized Agent: Li Zengli, Jun He Law Offices.@#
With regard to the case under the dispute with China Marine Shipping Agency Company, Fangchenggang Branch (hereinafter referred to as SinoAgent Fangcheng), Sinotrans Guangxi Company (hereinafter referred to as Sinotrans Guangxi), and Agricultural Bank of China, Wuzhou Branch (hereinafter referred to as Wuzhou Agricultural Bank) over tort due to a bill of lading, Hyosung (HK) Ltd. (the appellant, hereinafter referred to as Hyosung) was dissatisfied with the No. 18 (2001) civil judgment of the Higher People's Court of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (hereinafter referred to as Guangxi Higher Court), and appealed to the present court. The present court formed a collegial panel according to law, and then heard the present case publicly. Cao Nanjiang and Gao Zicheng, authorized agents of Hyosung Ltd., Xie Wei, authorized agent of SinoAgent Fangcheng and Sinotrans Guangxi, Yun Yi, authorized agent of Sinotrans Guangxi, Wu Baohong, litigation representative of Wuzhou Agricultural Bank, and Zou Weining and Li Zengli, authorized agents of Wuzhou Agricultural Bank appeared in the court and participated in the court proceedings. The present case has now been finalized.@#
It was ascertained by Guangxi Higher Court that: On February 25, 1997, Hyosung Ltd. and Hong Kong Metrich International Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as Metrich Company) concluded a “Contract on the Sale of Urea”, setting forth that Hyosung Ltd. shall supply 28,000 tons of urea to Metrich Company, with the unit price at USD 200/ton. On the basis of the contract, Metrich Company and Guangxi Fangchenggang Import & Export Company, the Sixth Branch (hereinafter referred to as the Sixth Branch) concluded a “Contract on the Sale of Goods” on March 10, 1997, setting forth that Metrich Company shall supply 28,000 tons of urea to the Sixth Branch, with the unit price at USD 210.8/ton. The price term shall be CIF Fangchenggang, China, and the total amount shall be USD 5,902,400. As for the term of payment, the buyer shall open an irrevocable 180-day usance letter of credit by March 19, 1997. On April 3, 1997, Metrich Company chartered “Xilaier” ship to carry the 28,000 tons of urea supplied by Hyosung Ltd. to Fangchenggang. “Xilaier” opened a bill of lading in three original copies and delivered them to Hyosung Ltd. After the goods arrived at the port, the Sixth Branch entrusted SinoAgent Fangcheng to handle the tally and the customs declaration, SinoAgent Fangcheng declared to the customs and went through the procedures for customs clearance of 9,000 tons of urea. On April 17, the Sixth Branch and Wuzhou Agricultural Bank separately issued a letter of guaranty to SinoAgent Fangcheng, guaranteeing that they would submit an original copy of the bill of lading as soon as possible, and requested SinoAgent Fangcheng to let the goods pass and to pick them up. From April 18 to July 19, SinoAgent Fangcheng let a total of 9,000 tons of goods pass to the Sixth Branch. Since the Sixth Branch failed to issue a license, nor did the bank permit the issuance of the letter of credit, Hyosung Ltd. concluded with the Sixth Branch and Metrich Company an “Agreement” (hereinafter referred to as the Three-Party Agreement) on July 21 for the sake of guaranteeing the interests of both parties. The Agreement sets forth: Party A (the Sixth Branch ) must guarantee the costs of Party B (Hyosung Ltd.), the purchase price shall be calculated at Party B' cost price, i.e., USD 194/ton, and Party A shall open a letter of credit for other goods and discount it to Metrich Company for making the payment for the urea to Party B. The Agreement also sets forth the time of opening the letter of credit, the arrangement of the bank and the amount, and that the discounting must be fulfilled and the payment must be fully made by August 15; Party B guarantees to actively cooperate with Party A in making the customs declaration and the customs clearance, and shall not miss the season for the sale of agricultural urea, which is in July and August; if Party A fails to fulfill the above-mentioned obligations, Party C (Metrich Company) shall be liable for any loss. After the agreement was concluded, SinoAgent Fangcheng failed to make customs clearance due to short of the import license. On September 11, 1997, Fangchenggang Customs took over and sold off the 19,245.8 tons of urea carried by “Xilaier” ship on the ground that the goods were not declared to the customs within the time limit. After deducting taxes and fees, Fangchenggang Customs notified and required SinoAgent Fangcheng on June 12, 1998 to notify the owner of the goods to apply for refund. On April 22, 1998, Hyosung Ltd. delivered an original copy of the bill of lading to Metrich Company for handing it over to the Sixth Branch, so that the Sixth Branch could apply to the customs for refund of the paid tax for the 19,000 tons of urea. In November, Hyosung Ltd. sued the Sixth Branch to the Intermediate People's Court of Fangchenggang Municipality (Fangchenggang Intermediate Court) by alleging that: Hyosung Ltd. was the holder of the bill of lading for the goods carried by “Xilaier” ship, and SinoAgent Fangcheng was the shipping and freight agent. On June 6, 1997, SinoAgent Fangcheng divided the bill of lading and picked up 9,000 tons of urea, and on September 11, 1997, the customs sold off the remaining goods and required the shipping agency company to notify the owner. As SinoAgent Fangcheng failed to timely notify the owner, it pleaded with the court to confirm that it was the holder of the full set of the original bill of lading under “Xilaier” ship, and should be entitled to own the remaining CNY 16,702,311.55 of for the 19,245.8 tons of urea carried by “Xilaier” ship and sold off by the customs. After reconciliation presided over by the court, both parties reached an agreement on a voluntary basis: the Sixth Branch confirms that Hyosung Ltd. is the owner of the full set of original bill of lading for the goods carried by “Xilaier” ship, and the remaining CNY 16,702,311.55 for the 19,245.8 tons of urea under the bill of lading shall be owned by Hyosung Ltd. Then the letter of reconciliation (No. 80 [1998]) became effective. In order to make recourse of the payment for the 9,000 tons of urea, Hyosung Ltd. sued to the Intermediate People's Court of Nanning Municipality (Nanning Intermediate Court) on June 1, 1999 upon the strength of the “Contract on the Sale of Goods” which involves an arbitration clause, but was rejected by Nanning Intermediate Court by ruling. During the period from 1998 to 2001, Hyosung Ltd. applied to Hong Kong court and Singapore court for distrainment of the ship in each year, so as to guarantee the limitation of action of the present case. On March 28, 2001, Hyosung Ltd. sued to Guangxi Higher Court due to an original copy of the bill of lading for the goods carried by “Xilaier” ship, pleading the court to confirm the fact that the three defendants let the goods pass without documents, which injured Hyosung Ltd.'s ownership of the goods under the bill of lading.@#
......

 

晓星香港有限公司诉中国船务代理公司防城港公司等提单侵权纠纷上诉案@#
最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
(2002)民四终字第27号@#
@#
上诉人(原审原告):晓星香港有限公司(原名晓星物产香港有限公司)HYOSUNG (HK) LTD。住所地:香港特别行政区中环皇后大道中9号25楼2504室。@#
法定代表人:朴赞善(PARK CHAN SUN),该公司总经理。@#
委托代理人:曹南江,康达律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:高子程,康达律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审被告):中国船务代理公司防城港公司。住所地:广西壮族自治区防城港市外贸大厦2楼。@#
法定代表人:欧恩强,该公司经理。@#
委托代理人:谢巍,远东律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审被告):中国外运广西公司。住所地:广西南宁市七星路137号。@#
法定代表人:欧恩强,该公司经理。@#
委托代理人:谢巍,远东律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:云怡,北京市天矛律师事务所律师。@#
被上诉人(原审被告):中国农业银行梧州分行。住所地:广西壮族自治区梧州市步埠路62号。@#
负责人:化伟强,行长。@#
委托代理人:邹唯宁,君合律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人:李增力,君合律师事务所律师。@#
上诉人晓星香港有限公司(以下简称晓星公司)因与中国船务代理公司防城港公司(以下简称防城外代)、中国外运广西公司(以下简称广西外运)、中国农业银行梧州分行(以下简称梧州农行)提单侵权纠纷一案,不服广西壮族自治区高级人民法院(2001)桂经初字18号民事判决,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭,公开开庭审理了本案。上诉人晓星公司委托代理人曹南江、高子程,被上诉人防城外代和广西外运代理人谢巍,广西外运代理人云怡,被上诉人梧州农行诉讼代表人吴保洪及其代理人邹唯宁、李增力到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。@#
原审认定:1997年2月25日,晓星公司与香港智得国际贸易有限公司(以下简称智得公司)签订一份《购销尿素合同》,约定由晓星公司供给智得公司尿素28000吨,单价200美元/吨。依据该合同,1997年3月10日智得公司又与广西防城港进出口公司第六分公司(以下简称六分公司)签订一份《售货合同》,约定由智得公司供给六分公司尿素28000吨,单价为210.8美元/吨,价格条件为CIFF0中国防城港,总金额为5902400美元。付款条件为需方在1997年3月19日前开出不可撤销远期180天信用证。1997年4月3日,智得公司租用“西来尔”轮将晓星公司供应的28000吨尿素运至防城港。“西来尔”轮开出正本提单一式三份交由晓星公司收执。货到港后,六分公司委托防城外代理货报关,防城外代向海关申报并办理了9000吨尿素的通关手续。4月17日,六分公司、梧州农行分别向防城外代出具保函,保证尽快提交正本提单,并要求防城外代放行提货。4月18日至7月19日,防城外代共放行货物9000吨给六分公司。由于六分公司未能开出许可证、银行亦不允许开出信用证,为了保证双方的利益,7月21日,晓星公司与六分公司、智得公司签订《协议书》(以下简称三方协议),约定:甲方(六分公司)必须保证乙方(晓星公司)的成本,购买价按乙方成本价194美元/吨计算,甲方采取开立其他货物信用证贴现给智得公司转付给乙方作为尿素货款,并约定了信用证的开证时间、银行及金额的安排,最迟不能超过8月15日前须全部贴现付清货款;乙方保证积极配合甲方办理报关及清关工作,不能错过7月、8月农用尿素销售季节:如甲方未能按上述执行,一切损失由丙方(智得公司)负责。合同签订后,由于没有进口许可证,防城外代无法清关。1997年9月11日,防城港海关以货物超期未报关为由提取变卖了“西来尔”轮所载的19245.8吨尿素,扣除税款等费用后,于1998年6月12日通知防城外代,要求其通知货物所有人办理退款手续。1998年4月22日,晓星公司将一份正本提单交智得公司转六分公司,以便六分公司向海关办理19000吨尿素的退款手续。同年11月晓星公司将六分公司诉至防城港市中级人民法院称:其是“西来尔”轮货物的提单持有者,防城外代是该船的船务和货物代理,1997年6月6日防城外代分拆提单提走了9000吨尿素,1997年9月11日海关变卖余下货物,并要求船代公司通知货主,由于防城外代未及时通知而未果,为此,请求法院确认其是“西来尔”轮全套正本提单的持有人,海关变卖“西来尔”轮所载19245.8吨尿素的余款16702311.55元为其所有。经法院主持调解,双方自愿达成协议:六分公司确认晓星公司是“西来尔”轮全套正本提单的所有人,提单项下的19245.8吨尿素的余款16702311.55元属晓星公司所有。调解书([1998]防中法经初字第80号)已生效执行。晓星公司为追索9000吨尿素的货款,曾于1999年6月1日以有仲裁条款的《售货合同》诉至南宁市中级人民法院,被南宁市中级人民法院裁定驳回起诉。期间1998年—2001年晓星公司每年向香港法院、新加坡法院申请扣船令,以保证本案诉讼时效。2001年3月28日,晓星公司以“西来尔”轮货物正本提单诉至原审法院,请求法院确认三被告无单放货的事实,侵犯了晓星公司拥有的提单项下货物的所有权。@#
@#
原审认为:关于本案是否超过诉讼时效问题,晓星公司递交的证据表明,晓星公司在诉讼时效内一直申请香港及新加坡法院扣押提单项下货物承运人的船舶,因此,晓星公司对与承运人负有连带债务的当事人起诉,并不超过诉讼时效。关于晓星公司是否本案货物提单的唯一所有人并有权依据提单的法律效力提起侵权之诉的问题。本案涉及两个法律关系,一是无正本提单放货、提货损害赔偿的法律关系;二是国际货物买卖合同关系。在货物抵港当时,晓星公司合法持有正本提单,是提单项下的货物所有人。防城外代作为船代和理货人,没有依据货物的正本提单,而是凭保函交付货物给六分公司,违反了国际贸易惯例。梧州农行为六分公司无正本提单提货出具保函提供担保,同样违反了国际贸易惯例。然而晓星公司并未依据提单的物权向防城外代、梧州农行主张权利,而是在明知因政策原因未能开出进口许可证、银行不允许开立信用证、防城外代拆单放行的情况下,仍以国际货物买卖合同货主的身份,与六分公司就价格、付款条件及违约问题重新对货物进行处理,并签订协议书。尤其是付款方式由信用证支付尿素货款改为开立其他货物信用证贴现给智得公司,说明晓星公司持有的提单不再具有物权凭证的效力,而只是运输合同和交付货物的证明。此外,晓星公司还起诉六分公司,要求六分公司负责要回海关所变卖的19000多吨货物的货款。其行为表明,晓星公司认可了六分公司是提单项下货物的权利人,其对六分公司享有债权,可依法请求六分公司给付货款。因此,梧州农行向防城外代出具保函,防城外代依据货主六分公司的指令放货,不构成对晓星公司的侵权,晓星公司依据没有物权效力的提单,主张三被告侵权并要求赔偿提单项下9000吨尿素的货款的理由不成立,不予支持。晓星公司与六分公司的货款纠纷应另行解决。依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第七十二条第二款关于“按照合同或其他合法方式取得财产的,财产所有权从财产交付时起转移”的规定,经审判委员会讨论决定,判决:驳回晓星公司的诉讼请求。案件受理费125860元,由晓星公司负担。@#
晓星公司不服上述判决,向本院提起上诉,请求本院撤销一审判决,改判防城外代赔偿其9000吨尿素款1897200美元,折合人民币15746760元及利息6224379.2元,共计人民币21971139.2元。广西外运和梧州农行承担连带赔偿责任。理由是:1、一审法院对据以定案的关键证据即三方协议未予质证,不能成为定案的依据;一审法院以复印件单一证据材料作为认定事实的依据,且证据材料形式要件严重欠缺;一审程序违反《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》和最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》,导致事实认定不正确。2、三方协议不能否定提单的物权效力。三方协议系虚假证据,没有其他证据证明晓星公司放弃货物的物权;防城外代和梧州农行违反国际贸易惯例,无单放货给六分公司在先,这一行为属侵害晓星公司物权的行为。晓星公司在法定时效内可任意选择向防城外代和梧州农行主张权利的时间和方式,除非晓星公司明示放弃这一权利;提单丧失物权属性是要式行为。只有在买方付款赎单,承运方凭单交付后,才丧失物权属性。涉案货物尚未凭单交付,六分公司从未获得也不可能获得涉案货物的所有权;假定六分公司依三方协议获得对涉案提单项下货物的所有权,但在(1998)防中法经初字第80号民事调解书中又确认晓星公司为该提单项下19245.8吨尿素的所有权。这说明晓星公司从未丧失过对提单项下货物的所有权,9000吨货物在被三被上诉人无权处分时,提单也未丧失物权凭证的效力。3、晓星公司起诉六分公司索取被海关变卖的货物的货款是晓星公司主张物权的明证,而不是丧失提单物权的根据。@#
......


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 【¥1000.00】 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