Company v. the Singapore Deli Gao Pat Co., Ltd.,
13 a cargo damage dispute arose
from a contract of carriage of goods by sea. The plaintiff entrusted Zhonggu Grain
and Oil Group Co., Ltd. (the Company) to import palm oil. The Company and
Fengtai Group signed a contract for the sale of goods and the defendant transported
palm oil from Malaysia’s Pasir Gudang port to Huangpu. The plaintiff found that
there was a shortage of the goods and the goods were polluted by seawater at the port
of discharge. The plaintiff asked the defendant to compensate the loss. The plaintiff
claimed that the true value of the goods should be determined according to the price
of the contract which was signed by the plaintiff and the third party. However, the
court did not support the claim. Instead, it adopted the price of the contract which
was signed by the Company and Fengtai Group.
Some courts ascertain the value of the goods according to the payment made by
the plaintiff at the time of shipment. For example, in the retrial case of Chaozhou
Light Industrial Products Import and Export Companies v. Shekou Wantong Freight
Forwarders & Others which dealt with compensation for cargo damage occurring in
maritime transport,
14 the Guangdong Province Higher People’s Court held that the
plaintiff Chaozhou Company’s economic losses should be ascertained according to
the actual value of the goods, vis-à-vis, the value of goods at the time of loading plus
insurance and freight. But the plaintiff did not pay the insurance premium for the
goods, nor did it propose a loss of freight. Thus, the loss should be determined
according to the payment of goods made by Chaozhou Company to the third-party
Chaozhou City Jinan Ceramics Co., Ltd.
In addition, the value of the goods can also be ascertained by the courts according
to customs declaration forms. For example, in Zhejiang Tianlong Textile Co., Ltd. v.
Korea Cruise Co., Ltd.,
15 a maritime cargo transportation contract dispute case,
between February to June 2002, the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to ship cargos
from Shanghai to Mexico 7 times. The defendant issued 7 sets of bills of lading to
“Sun Ocean Express Co.” On August 23, 2002, the plaintiff asked the defendant to
return the goods to Shanghai, and the defendant agreed to take the goods on
condition that the 7 sets of bills of lading be withdrawn, but the goods were never
returned to Shanghai. After the plaintiff and its foreign trade agent Shaoxing
Tianlong Import and Export Co., Ltd. (“Tianlong Company”) repeatedly urged the
defendant, the defendant still refused to inform the plaintiff of the exact whereabouts
of the goods. Until the trial, the defendant still had not delivered the goods, so the
court presumed a total loss of the goods. Regarding the value of the goods involved,
the plaintiff provided customs declarations and commercial invoices, but the stated
values of goods on these two documents were inconsistent.
13 Heilongjiang Agricultural and Grain Economic and Trade Limited Liability Company v. the
Singapore Deli Gao Pat Co., Ltd.’ http://www.pkulaw.cn/case/pfnl_1970324837796384.html?
keywords¼%E5%9B%BD%E9%99%85%E6%B5%B7%E4%B8%8A%E8%B4%A7%E7%89%
A9%E8%BF%90%E8%BE%93%20CIF&match¼Exact, Accessed 5 September 2017.
14 No.61 Judgement [2002], Second Instance, Guangdong Province Higher People’s Court.
15 No.220 Judgement [2003], First Instance, Shanghai Maritime Court.
218
L. Han and S. Cai
13 a cargo damage dispute arose
from a contract of carriage of goods by sea. The plaintiff entrusted Zhonggu Grain
and Oil Group Co., Ltd. (the Company) to import palm oil. The Company and
Fengtai Group signed a contract for the sale of goods and the defendant transported
palm oil from Malaysia’s Pasir Gudang port to Huangpu. The plaintiff found that
there was a shortage of the goods and the goods were polluted by seawater at the port
of discharge. The plaintiff asked the defendant to compensate the loss. The plaintiff
claimed that the true value of the goods should be determined according to the price
of the contract which was signed by the plaintiff and the third party. However, the
court did not support the claim. Instead, it adopted the price of the contract which
was signed by the Company and Fengtai Group.
Some courts ascertain the value of the goods according to the payment made by
the plaintiff at the time of shipment. For example, in the retrial case of Chaozhou
Light Industrial Products Import and Export Companies v. Shekou Wantong Freight
Forwarders & Others which dealt with compensation for cargo damage occurring in
maritime transport,
14 the Guangdong Province Higher People’s Court held that the
plaintiff Chaozhou Company’s economic losses should be ascertained according to
the actual value of the goods, vis-à-vis, the value of goods at the time of loading plus
insurance and freight. But the plaintiff did not pay the insurance premium for the
goods, nor did it propose a loss of freight. Thus, the loss should be determined
according to the payment of goods made by Chaozhou Company to the third-party
Chaozhou City Jinan Ceramics Co., Ltd.
In addition, the value of the goods can also be ascertained by the courts according
to customs declaration forms. For example, in Zhejiang Tianlong Textile Co., Ltd. v.
Korea Cruise Co., Ltd.,
15 a maritime cargo transportation contract dispute case,
between February to June 2002, the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to ship cargos
from Shanghai to Mexico 7 times. The defendant issued 7 sets of bills of lading to
“Sun Ocean Express Co.” On August 23, 2002, the plaintiff asked the defendant to
return the goods to Shanghai, and the defendant agreed to take the goods on
condition that the 7 sets of bills of lading be withdrawn, but the goods were never
returned to Shanghai. After the plaintiff and its foreign trade agent Shaoxing
Tianlong Import and Export Co., Ltd. (“Tianlong Company”) repeatedly urged the
defendant, the defendant still refused to inform the plaintiff of the exact whereabouts
of the goods. Until the trial, the defendant still had not delivered the goods, so the
court presumed a total loss of the goods. Regarding the value of the goods involved,
the plaintiff provided customs declarations and commercial invoices, but the stated
values of goods on these two documents were inconsistent.
13 Heilongjiang Agricultural and Grain Economic and Trade Limited Liability Company v. the
Singapore Deli Gao Pat Co., Ltd.’ http://www.pkulaw.cn/case/pfnl_1970324837796384.html?
keywords¼%E5%9B%BD%E9%99%85%E6%B5%B7%E4%B8%8A%E8%B4%A7%E7%89%
A9%E8%BF%90%E8%BE%93%20CIF&match¼Exact, Accessed 5 September 2017.
14 No.61 Judgement [2002], Second Instance, Guangdong Province Higher People’s Court.
15 No.220 Judgement [2003], First Instance, Shanghai Maritime Court.
218
L. Han and S. Cai