[Case brief]

In June 2013, the plaintiff booked shipping space from the defendant through its port of loading agent Ouhua Tianjin Company, and entrusted the defendant to transport 50 containers of steel materials from China to Turkey. On June 28, the defendant issued an order bill of lading numbered TMEI13064401ZM to the plaintiff, stating that the shipper was the plaintiff, the carrier was the defendant, the notify party was Turkey TCDD, and the port of unloading was LANDED IZMIR PORT, TURKEY. On the same day, the defendant signed a transport contract with Arab Airlines, a party outside the case, and entrusted it to actually carry the goods involved. Arab Airlines issued to the defendant a registered bill of lading numbered CNXGG062768, stating that the shipper was the defendant, the carrier was Arab Airlines, the consignee was Noah Company, and the port of unloading is ALIAGA IZMIR, Turkey. The goods were unloaded at the port of ALIAGA IZMIR, Turkey from August 21 to 22, 2013. Due to the defendant’s refusal to transshipment, the plaintiff entrusted its agent in Turkey, EDA, on September 17, 2013, to transport the goods to Izmir Port and deliver them to the consignee TCDD, and additional costs were incurred, which were paid by EDA to the relevant companies on behalf of the plaintiff from September to October 2013. On October 10, 2014, EDA confirmed that it had received all the above costs from the plaintiff.

Izmir Port and Aliaga Port are two independent ports, administered by different port authorities and customs authorities. Izmir Port, also known as Alsancak Port, is a Turkish state-owned port operated by the state-owned company TCDD. Ariaga Port, a port about 50 kilometers north of Izmir, Turkey, is operated by the private company EgeGübreSanayi A.S. If the consignee is TCDD, the cargo unloaded to Izmir Port will be exempted from relevant operating expenses.

The plaintiff had three batches of steel materials shipped from China to Turkey for delivery to TCDD. The goods involved in this case were the second batch, and the other two batches were respectively shipped on April 28 and October 26, 2013, with bills of lading issued accordingly. According to the bills of lading, for both batches the shipper was the plaintiff, the notify party was TCDD, the port of loading was Tianjin Xingang of China, and the port of unloading was Izmir Port, Turkey. Both batches were delivered to Izmir Port, Turkey and delivered to the consignee TCDD. Except for prepaid freight, the expenses paid by EDA on behalf of the plaintiff at the port of unloading for the both batches were unloading fee, document fee, unloading supervision fee, equipment inspection and control fee, and port security fee.

[Judicial decision]

Tianjin Maritime Court made the judgment that the defendant Dalian Peihua International Logistics Co., Ltd. should compensate the plaintiff Tianjin Yinlong Prestressing Materials Co., Ltd. for the economic loss of RMB 386,393.05 and the associated interest, and other claims of the plaintiff Tianjin Yinlong Prestressing Materials Co., Ltd. were rejected.

[Significance]

This case is a maritime transport contract dispute involving the “Belt and Road” initiative. In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant had a major dispute over the clauses on the port of unloading in the bill of lading, and it is essential to clarify which port was the “IZMIR PORT” agreed in the contract for judging whether the defendant had breached the contract. In strict accordance with the relevant provisions of the Contract Law, the Court comprehensively used the methods of literal interpretation and purpose interpretation and considered the transaction habits to interpret the terms, and finally determined that the “IZMIR PORT” referred to Izmir Port in Turkey. This case has a reference significance for the trial of contract disputes involving the “Belt and Road” initiative.