Thứ hai, 28/09/2020Hotline: 0906 779982Quảng cáo

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

277 triệu USD hàng hoá đi EU sau 1,5 tháng EVFTA có hiệu lực

Ngày 25/09/2020 lúc 08:57

Thông tin này được Bộ trưởng Công thương Trần Tuấn Anh đưa ra tại buổi làm việc của Đoàn Giám sát, Ủy ban Thường vụ Quốc hội làm việc với Chính phủ, các bộ, ngành.

Triển vọng giao thương trái cây tươi của Ấn Độ thúc đẩy nhu cầu vận chuyển hàng không

6 Giờ trước

Giá trị xuất khẩu trái cây tươi từ Ấn Độ lên tới gần 764 triệu đô la Mỹ (USD) trong năm tài chính 2020. Trong đó có gần 647 USD trái cây chế biến và nước trái cây xuất khẩu. Giá trị xuất khẩu trái cây của Ấn Độ đã tăng đều đặn kể từ năm tài chính 2015. Triển vọng giao thương trái cây tươi giữa Ấn Độ và các nước sẽ thúc đẩy nhu cầu vận chuyển hàng không đối với mặt hàng này trong thời gian tới.

Xuất khẩu hoa quả vào Trung Quốc: Nhiều kì vọng mới

13 Giờ trước

Khi Việt Nam và Trung Quốc cùng kiểm soát, khống chế tốt dịch Covid-19, kì vọng sản phẩm trái cây sẽ có nhiều bước bứt phá trong kim ngạch xuất, nhập khẩu.

Hàng không phục hồi nhanh

13 Giờ trước

Tới nay, tất cả các đường bay nội địa đều được nối lại, thậm chí tăng tần suất để phục vụ nhu cầu đi lại tăng cao sau đợt dịch COVID-19 lần 2 bùng phát.

Thời tiết

TP Hồ Chí Minh

Hiện tại

30°

Nhiều mây

29/09

24° - 31°

Mưa giông

30/09

24° - 32°

Mưa giông vào buổi chiều

01/10

25° - 32°

Mưa giông vào buổi chiều

Nguồn: Weathers Underground

Tỷ giá ngoại tệ

Tỷ giá ngoại tệ cập nhật vào 28/09/2020 20:51
Mã NTTiền mặtChuyển khoảnBán
USD23,070.0023,100.0023,280.00
AUD15,897.3816,057.9616,561.31
EUR26,256.7826,522.0027,595.90
GBP28,831.3729,122.6030,035.47
JPY212.62214.77223.69
SGD16,420.2716,586.1317,106.03
THB647.90719.89746.93
Nguồn: Vietcombank

Giá xăng dầu

Giá xăng, dầu cập nhật ngày 28/09/2020 11:59
Loại xăng dầuĐơn vịGiá vùng 1Giá vùng 2
Dầu hỏa 2-KVND/L94409620
DO 0,001S-VVND/L1152011750
DO 0,05S-IIVND/L1112011340
E5 RON 92-IIVND/L1421014490
Xăng RON 95-IIIVND/L1498015270
Xăng RON 95-IVVND/L1508015380
Nguồn: Petrolimex
Navy Hotel Group: An outstanding experience of space and service

Navy Hotel Group: An outstanding experience of space and service

Ngày 16/09/2020 lúc 09:27

Navy Hotel Group Navy Hotel Group...