[Case brief]

ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. (“ZIM”), an Israeli company, signed a booking agreement with China Merchants Logistics Group (“CMLG”), based on which CMLG engaged ZIM as carrier of its import and export goods in Tianjin. According to the agreement, if no one picks up the goods at the destination, CMLG and the consigner will bear joint and several liabilities for all the liabilities, consequences, costs and expenses caused thereby to ZIM. In August 2014, CMLG entrusted ZIM to transport a loaded 20-feet container from Tianjin New Port to Odessa Port in Ukraine. ZIM issued an order B/L, which indicated that the consigner was Hefei Salt Chemical Co., Ltd. (“Hefei Salt”) and specified the free use period of the container and the demurrage rate. After the goods arrived at the destination, no one picked up them upon original B/L. Later, the goods were destroyed at the port of destination, and ZIM paid destruction cost, storage cost, loading/unloading cost and other costs and expenses incurred at the port of destination due to such destruction. Thus, ZIM claimed that CMLG and Hefei Salt should indemnify jointly and severally the costs and expenses incurred at the port of destination, the container demurrage and other damages amounting to USD 20,310 and the interest of this amount. During the trial of this case, ZIM and CMLG agreed to resolve this dispute in accordance with Chinese laws.

[Judicial decision]

In the first-instance judgment made by Tianjin Maritime Court, it was ordered that CMLG should indemnify ZIM for the costs and expenses of goods disposal at the port of destination and the container demurrage calculated based on purchase cost, amounting to RMB 66,152.52 in total, and the associated interest, and other claims of ZIM were rejected. CMLG refused to accept such first-instance judgment and filed an appeal. Tianjin Higher People’s Court rejected the appeal in the second-instance judgment and upheld the original judgment.

[Significance]

This case is a marine freight transport contract dispute case occurred in a country along the “Belt and Road” due to non-taking of goods at the port of destination. It has the following typical significance: Firstly, it clarified the liable party for the loss incurred to the carrier due to non-taking of goods at the port of destination. In the event of such non-taking of goods, the carrier has the right to claim against the consigner based on the marine freight transport contract. Secondly, it clarified that the lien of the carrier over the goods as provided for in Article 87 and Article 88 of the Maritime Law should not be a precondition for the claim against the consigner. Goods taking and holding is only one of the means usable by the carrier to safeguard its right, and the carrier’s failure to hold the goods does not affect its right to claim associated costs and expenses from the consigner. Thirdly, notarization or certification was not used as the only criterion for effectiveness of overseas evidences, but the empirical rule and logical reasoning was used to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of the overseas evidences based on several factors such as particular case, type of the evidence, fact to be proved, and cross-proving with other evidences. This fully showed the trial and judgment level of the people’s court in foreign party involved commercial and maritime cases under the background of the “Belt and Road” initiative. This case was selected as one of the ten typical maritime cases in China.