Lessons learned from a dispute on forwarding & transport

(VLR) During the implementation of the contract, the parties may agree to change the terms of the contract but do not know whether it is necessary to make an annex to the contract or not. Enterprises can render service to each other but do not know whether it is a contractual obligation or just an assistance. When collecting a debt, may it be different from the contractual provisions on kinds and contents of documents or not. Failing to study carefully the Standard Trading Conditions of logistics businesses (specified clearly on the documents of the transaction) may result in the adverse outcome during the implementation of the contract.

Summary of the dispute

A logistics service provider (Claimant) signed a Contract of Carriage (Contract) with an import-export company (Respondent) to transport equipment and machinery stuffed in containers by sea and road from a European port to Respondent’s factory in Quang Ninh (Factory). Before and after signing the Contract, the Respondent always sent emails requesting the Claimant to quote freight rates from the above seaport to the Factory. The Claimant had quoted sea freight rate from the loading port to Hai Phong port (Container Yard - CY) and Respondent accepted the quotation without any comment.

The two parties signed the annex of contract specifying the quantity of goods for the first shipment was 03 containers with freight rates, surcharges, haulage charge from Hai Phong to the Factory, customs clearance fees. The two parties negotiated to carry all of 13 shipments in the following way: Respondent sent enquiries and Claimant returned with its quotations. The contents of 13 quotations are clearly stated that the carriage was from the loading port to Hai Phong port which were fully accepted by the Respondent. After completing 13 shipments, with many requests for payment of freight and customs service costs of VND 2,168,382,175 and late payment interest of VND 197,187,653 but Respondent only paid VND 544,820,950 for shipments 1, 2 and 3, remaining 10 shipment unpaid, the Claimant sued the Respondent at the Arbitration demanding the remaining amount of VND 1,623,561,225 and interest due to late payment of VND 197,187,653.

Analysis of the arbitral tribunal and lessons learned

The Respondent held that the Contract and Annex did not apply to all of 13 shipments, but only to the shipment stated in the Annex, that was, only to three containers of the first shipment; for other shipments, a new contract was required, although the Respondent had accepted all of 13 quotations. In fact, the Respondent paid the Claimant VND 544,820,950 for international freight and customs service charges of the first, second and third shipment. By this action, the Respondent acknowledged the Contract and the Annex applied to all subsequent shipments after the first one. Pursuant to Clause 2, Article 408 of the 2005 Civil Code, 13 quotations (offering sea freight rates only) fully accepted by the Respondent were considered as Annex to the Contract.

The Respondent claimed that the Claimant had to carry the shipments by sea and road to the Factory according to the Contract. Therefore, they (Respondent) did not pay for the road leg. In fact, the Respondent had contracted with another company to carry by road (haul) to the Factory despite asking for the Claimant’s quotation. So, in accordance with Clause 2, Article 408 of the 2005 Civil Code, the road transport (haulage) service had been mutually agreed to amend in comparison with the Contract as well as the Annex. The Respondent had no claims on damage, loss and delay of the 13 shipments after their arrival in Hai Phong port. Therefore, in accordance with Article 96 of the 2005 Vietnam Maritime Code the Respondent already received rightly and fully the 13 shipments, so there is no basis to refuse the payment for the remaining sea freight and service charges.

The Respondent said that the signing of work acceptance and collation of debts had not been done for each month, so there is no penalty for late payment. According to Article 4 of the Contract, the Claimant had to send documents for payment and late payment penalty amount monthly but the Claimant only had a Debit Note for each shipment, there was no amount of late payment penalty and it still had not been confirmed by the Respondent. The Claimant had only 03 official letters demanding payment of freight for 13 shipments and a list of total debt of VND 2,168,382,175. However, the Respondent previously paid the Claimant VND 544,820,950, therefore, the debt amount was only VND 1,623,561,225. Therefrom, the Arbitral Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) held that the Claimant did not have enough documents to ask for the payment of VND 197,187,653 as penalty under Clause 2, Article 6 of the Contract.

The Respondent claimed that the Claimant was authorized to act as a customs broker and to register the list of imported goods but there was no evidence of this authorization. In 13 quotations, the Claimant only quoted the fees and charges for customs services, not acting as a customs broker. According to Clause 7, Article 4 of the 2005 Law on Customs and Clause 1, Article 2 of Circular No. 80/2011/TT-BTC dated 9 June 2011, in case the Claimant was authorized to act as a customs broker, the customs declarant in the customs declarations had been in the name of Claimant. The fact was that the customs declarants mentioned in 13 customs declarations were the Respondent, the Respondent still issued letters of introduction confirming that the Claimant’s employee was the Respondent’s person to clear the goods. Therefrom, the Tribunal realized that the Claimant was not a customs broker but only a servant of Respondent to clear the customs. Furthermore, according to Article I.3 of the “Standard Trading Conditions of Vietnam Logistics Business Association”, which the two Parties accepted (in the Contract and quotations by email), when carrying out customs procedures, permission etc., the Claimant was only considered as the performer on behalf of the Respondent in line with the Respondent’s Letter of Introduction, not the customs broker. Therefore, the delay in customs clearance resulting in container demurrage and detention were entirely due to the Respondent’s fault.

Ngo Khac Le - VIAC Arbitrator

Ý kiến bạn đọc

Chưa có ý kiến nào. Hãy là người để lại ý kiến đầu tiên.

Ý kiến của bạn

0

Tối thiểu 10 chữTiếng Việt có dấuKhông chứa liên kếtGửi bình luận

Vui lòng nhập mã bảo mật để gửi bình luận lên hệ thống
Gửi bình luận

Bà Rịa - Vũng Tàu kích cầu du lịch: Giá dịch vụ giảm tới 50%

Ngày 06/06/2020 lúc 09:12

Hàng chục doanh nghiệp tỉnh Bà Rịa - Vũng Tàu cùng tham gia kích cầu du lịch, giảm giá dịch vụ nhưng chất lượng phục vụ không giảm.

Tái cấu trúc chuỗi cung ứng, tạo thuận lợi cho luân chuyển hàng hóa

Ngày 05/06/2020 lúc 15:42

Phát biểu tại cuộc họp báo ngay sau khi kết thúc Hội nghị Bộ trưởng Kinh tế ASEAN (AEM) và Hội nghị Bộ trưởng Kinh tế ASEAN+3 (AEM+3) trực tuyến, Bộ trưởng Trần Tuấn Anh khẳng định, các nước thống nhất mục tiêu cao nhất là tiếp tục đảm bảo phòng, chống dịch Covid-19 hiệu quả, đồng thời phối hợp chặt chẽ, đảm bảo những chương trình hợp tác về kinh tế - xã hội.

Bám sát mục tiêu, triển khai hiệu quả các Nghị quyết của Chính phủ

Ngày 05/06/2020 lúc 15:37

Trong những tháng đầu năm, dù chịu tác động của dịch bệnh Covid -19 song Bộ Công Thương đã chủ động đưa ra các chương trình, kế hoạch và giải pháp để thực hiện Nghị quyết số 01/NQ-CP của Chính phủ về những nhiệm vụ, giải pháp chủ yếu thực hiện Kế hoạch phát triển kinh tế - xã hội.

Thời tiết

TP Hồ Chí Minh

Hiện tại

33°

Mây rải rác

08/06

26° - 34°

Mưa giông vào buổi chiều

09/06

25° - 33°

Mưa giông vào buổi chiều

10/06

25° - 32°

Mưa giông

Nguồn: Weathers Underground

Tỷ giá ngoại tệ

Tỷ giá ngoại tệ cập nhật vào 07/06/2020 14:55
Mã NTTiền mặtChuyển khoảnBán
USD23,130.0023,160.0023,340.00
AUD15,868.2716,028.5616,530.95
EUR25,737.7825,997.7627,050.38
GBP28,690.7028,980.5129,888.87
JPY205.45207.53215.93
SGD16,291.2116,455.7716,971.55
THB652.67725.19752.43
Nguồn: Vietcombank

Giá xăng dầu

Giá xăng, dầu cập nhật ngày 07/06/2020 11:55
Loại xăng dầuĐơn vịGiá vùng 1Giá vùng 2
Dầu hỏa 2-KVND/L87508920
DO 0,001S-VVND/L1104011260
DO 0,05S-IIVND/L1074010950
E5 RON 92-IIVND/L1240012640
Xăng RON 95-IIIVND/L1312013380
Xăng RON 95-IVVND/L1322013480
Nguồn: Petrolimex
Cargo Transport Direct Flight Vietnam- Europe

Cargo Transport Direct Flight Vietnam- Europe

Ngày 28/05/2020 lúc 11:21

PTC-GSA, together with its aviation partners, launched a cargo direct flight from HCMC- Europe: cargo from HCMC will...