[Case brief]

On February 13, 2014, the plaintiff, as the buyer, signed a contract with China National United Oil Corporation, a party outside the case, to purchase 15,181.623 tons of mixed aromatics. The plaintiff paid USD 16,523,920.83 for the goods as agreed in the contract. The goods involved in the case were transported by the vessel EDZARD SCHULTE from Bangkok Port, Thailand to Tianjin Port, China. The carrier issued 5 sets of triplicate original bills of lading numbered GC14020101-GC14020105. According to the bills of lading, the consignee was “To order of VITOL ASIA PET LTD”, and the notify party was the plaintiff. The plaintiff held one original bill of lading in each set of the bills of lading involved in the case. The cargo was released via telex by the shipping agent Chuangjin Shipping Co., Ltd. upon the carrier’s instruction on telex release and the import document change guarantee letter stamped by the plaintiff, and was discharged into the defendant’s storage tank after arriving at the unloading port on March 5.

On February 24, the plaintiff, as the seller, signed a sale and purchase contract with Juli Holding for the goods involved in the case, and Juli Holding sold the goods to Dongsheng Petrochemical later. In order to perform the sale and purchase contract, the plaintiff delivered the relevant documents required for delivery and customs clearance to Juli Holding. The pick-up, customs declaration, port handling and other procedures for the goods were actually completed by Tongbao Freight Forwarding Company and Gangyuan Shipping Company. Gangyuan Shipping went through the pick-up procedures and obtained the D/O bill of lading stamped by the shipping agent Chuangjin Shipping. Tongbao Freight Forwarding Company was responsible for the customs declaration of the goods, and the Xingang Customs of the People’s Republic of China affixed the release seal on the D/O bill of lading. The plaintiff did not pay port fees, customs declaration fee, customs import value-added tax and other fees, nor did it pay the agency fees and the above-mentioned fees to Tongbao Freight Forwarding Company and Gangyuan Shipping Company. On March 19, Dongsheng Petrochemical, holding an original D/O bill of lading with customs clearance stamp, signed a contract on storage of the goods involved in the case with the defendant. In the contract, it was agreed that Dongsheng Petrochemical should issue a stamped bill of lading to the defendant every time it took oil from the storage tank. From March to April 2014, Dongsheng Petrochemical issued to the defendant a notice of delivery recording the consignor and consignee, tank number, cargo name and vehicle plate number, and all the cargos involved in the case were picked up.

[Judicial decision]

Tianjin Maritime Court made the judgment that the all the claims of the plaintiff Qingdao Zod International Trade Co., Ltd. were rejected.

[Significance]

The case is a storage contract dispute involving the “Belt and Road” initiative. In this case, the court made it clear that the bill of lading cannot bind the warehousing service provider under a warehousing contract, and the holder of the bill of lading can claim against the carrier of the maritime cargo transport contract on the basis of the bill of lading, but cannot claim against the warehousing service provider on the basis of the bill of lading. The D/O bill of lading has the function of a pick-up voucher, and plays a role of connector between the transport process and the warehousing process in the port business operation of imported goods. The warehousing service provider delivered the goods to the holder of the D/O bill of lading according to the storage contract signed with the holder of the D/O bill of lading, and in this way the warehousing service provider fulfilled its obligation to release the goods with due diligence, and its behavior did not constitute an infringement on the holder of the bill of lading. This case was selected as one of the typical cases of the courts in Tianjin in supporting the “Belt and Road” initiative.