Plaintiff Zhejiang Zhongda Huatai Textile Co., Ltd. sued defendant Shanghai Deneng International Freight Forwarding Co., Ltd. Freight forwarding contract dispute case

Plaintiff Zhejiang Zhongda Huatai Textile Co., Ltd.

Legal representative Fu Zhongyi, chairman of the company.

The authorized agent is Chen Dewu, a lawyer at Shanghai Zheng Chuanben Law Firm.

The authorized agent is Liu Xun, a lawyer at Shanghai Zheng Chuanben Law Firm.

The defendant Shanghai Deneng International Cargo Transport Agency Co., Ltd.

Legal representative Hao Jie, manager of the company.

The authorized agent is Zhou Jing, a lawyer at Shanghai Jinmao Law Firm.

The plaintiff, Zhejiang Zhongda Huatai Textile Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit with this court on March 26, 2008 over a freight forwarding contract dispute with the defendant, Shanghai Deneng International Freight Forwarding Co., Ltd., which was accepted by this court on the same day. Afterwards, the case will be heard in accordance with the law using simplified procedures. On April 9, 2008, the defendant raised an objection to jurisdiction. After review, this court ruled to reject the defendant's objection to jurisdiction. The defendant appealed, and the Shanghai Higher People's Court issued (2008) Hu Gao Min Si (Hai) Zhong Zi No. 114 ruling to uphold the decision. On September 17, 2008, this court held a public hearing on this case. The plaintiff's agent Chen Dewu, the defendant's legal representative Hao Jie, and his agent Zhou Jing attended the court to participate in the lawsuit. The case has now been concluded.

The plaintiff claimed: On May 25, 2007, the plaintiff sent an export cargo consignment document numbered 917YHTB039 to the defendant through MSN, entrusting the defendant to book a cargo ship from Shanghai to Haiphong, Vietnam on June 1 . On May 28 of the same year, the plaintiff faxed some of the final data that needed to be changed or emphasized to the defendant so that the defendant could make customs declarations based on the contents of the export cargo consignment document. Previously, the plaintiff also entrusted the defendant to handle the export agency business under the export cargo consignment number 917YHTB038 in the same way on May 18 of the same year. The relevant information of the two batches of goods was basically the same. After the goods were shipped, the plaintiff received the pre-recorded customs declaration form sent back by the defendant and found that the name of the goods under the consignment document 917YHTB039 was wrong, misreporting "cotton elastic knitted fabric" as "polyester knitted fabric". The plaintiff immediately asked the defendant to make changes to the customs, but the defendant refused to make changes for various reasons. In July 2007, the above two batches of goods were returned due to quality problems. The plaintiff entrusted the defendant to handle the return procedures and once again requested to change the name of the goods. The defendant claimed that the procedure for changing the product name was cumbersome and that it was willing to take full responsibility if any problems occurred. In October of the same year, the defendant informed the plaintiff that the goods were seized by the customs due to inconsistent product names. The plaintiff had no choice but to pay various import taxes and fees of RMB 260,628.77 before the goods were cleared and released. The plaintiff believed that the expenses were caused by the defendant’s customs declaration errors, so it requested that the defendant be ordered to compensate for losses of RMB 260,628.77 (including import tariffs of RMB 62,929.70, import value-added tax of RMB 117,678.54, and late declaration fees). RMB 42,013, container overdue fee RMB 38,007.53), the case acceptance fee shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant argued: First of all, the power of attorney for customs declaration of the goods involved showed that the plaintiff entrusted Shanghai Jihua International Freight Forwarding Co., Ltd. to perform customs declaration, so the plaintiff improperly named our company as the defendant. Secondly, judging from the customs declaration documents for the goods involved in the case obtained by Shanghai Customs, the cargo owner’s customs declaration form, packing list (weight list), export special invoice, customs declaration power of attorney and other documents stamped with the plaintiff’s seal were filled out and printed by the plaintiff himself. The names of the goods were all "100 polyester knitted fabric" or "100POLYTRICOT", so the defendant did not misrepresent "cotton elastic knitted fabric" as "100 polyester knitted fabric". The defendant never made any statement to the plaintiff confirming that he was at fault and willing to take responsibility. Third, when the goods were returned for import, the container had been replaced, and the goods themselves had no brand or other special marks for verification. It was impossible to verify whether the defendant's so-called returned goods were the export goods under the 917YHTB039 consignment document.

In summary, the plaintiff’s claim lacks factual and legal basis, and the court should not support it.

The evidence provided by the plaintiff to prove the facts of its complaint, the defendant’s cross-examination and the certification opinion of this court are as follows:

The first set of evidence, the export cargo consignment documents numbered 917YHTB038, 917YHTB039 and The fax that corrects and confirms the data information (hereinafter referred to as the data information sheet) proves that the plaintiff and the defendant established a freight forwarding entrustment relationship through MSN and fax, and that the product name of the goods is cotton elastic knitted fabric. The defendant's cross-examination pointed out that the defendant had never received a consignment letter for export goods, and the entrustment relationship between the two parties was established by faxing the data information sheet; the name of the goods was not indicated on the data information sheet No. 917YHTB039, and the plaintiff chatted with MSN over the phone. Inform the defendant that the name of the goods is polyester knitted fabric. This court believes that since the defendant has no objection to the data information sheet, the validity of the evidence is determined. However, there is no name of the goods on the data information sheet No. 917YHTB039. Therefore, the evidence does not support the fact that the plaintiff has informed the defendant that the Chinese name of the goods is cotton elastic knitted fabric. Not probative. As for the export cargo consignment document, the plaintiff claimed that it was sent to the defendant through the MSN network, but did not provide other evidence to support it. The defendant also denied receiving the two consignment documents, so the validity of the evidence was not recognized. Even if the defendant had indeed received the two consignment documents, the consignment documents did not clearly indicate the name of the goods in Chinese. Therefore, the consignment documents were also not probative of the plaintiff's claim that the Chinese names of the goods had been correctly informed to the defendant.

The second set of evidence, the fax sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on July 16, 2007, proves that the plaintiff required the defendant to handle the return procedures for the goods under the consignment documents 917YHTB038 and 917YHTB039. The defendant has no objection to the authenticity, and the validity of the evidence is confirmed by this court.

The third set of evidence, the description of the situation provided by the defendant to the customs, proves that the defendant admitted that the customs declaration error was caused by his negligence. The defendant has no objection to the authenticity, but believes that the defendant was forced to issue the statement at the request of the plaintiff when the plaintiff was in arrears with a large amount of freight and miscellaneous charges. It was only necessary for the plaintiff to apply to the customs for modifying the product name, and did not admit responsibility. meaning. The description of the situation only stated "due to negligence" and did not state that it was due to the defendant's negligence. This court held that since the defendant’s confirmation statement was issued by him, the validity of the evidence was determined. However, the description of the situation does not indicate who was negligent in causing the customs declaration error, so this evidence is not probative of the plaintiff's claim that the defendant was at fault.

The fourth set of evidence, including freight forwarder fee invoices, customs special payment notes, late declaration fee receipts, and payment vouchers, proves the specific composition and amount of the plaintiff's losses. The defendant has no objection to the authenticity, but believes that the freight forwarding fee invoice was issued by Shanghai Jinghai Freight Co., Ltd., while the import customs declaration was actually handled by Shanghai Xingchen Customs Declaration Co., Ltd., and the freight forwarding fee included the two invoices of 917YHTB038 and 917YHTB039. Fees cannot be distinguished, so the relevance of this evidence is not recognized. This court believes that the ship name, voyage number, and bill of lading number shown on the freight forwarding fee invoice are consistent with the ship name, voyage number, and bill of lading number for the return of the goods involved, and the validity of the evidence can be confirmed. Since the remaining invoices and payment vouchers were consistent with the information obtained by the court from the customs, the validity and probative power of the evidence were also recognized.

The evidence provided by the defendant to prove the facts argued, the plaintiff’s cross-examination and the court’s findings are as follows:

The first set of evidence, the customs declaration form numbered 222620070767225348 and the attached documents (This set of evidence was obtained by this court from the Shanghai Customs Archives Department at the defendant’s request), proving that: 1. The plaintiff’s self-filled customs declaration form, packing list (weight list), special export invoice, and customs declaration power of attorney were all recorded The name of the goods is "Polyester Knitted Fabric" or "100POLYTRICOT"; 2. The export declaration agent of the goods involved is Shanghai Jihua International Freight Forwarding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jihua Freight Forwarding); 3. The container number when the goods were exported was GLDU7131467 .

The plaintiff’s cross-examination held that: 1. The plaintiff handed over a blank document with a seal to the defendant, and the relevant information was filled in by the defendant; 2. The plaintiff entrusted the defendant and had no customs declaration entrustment relationship with Jihua Freight; 3. There was no objection to the container number . This court believes that this set of evidence was taken from customs files, and the validity of the evidence should be recognized. As for whether there is an entrusted customs declaration relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, this court will make a separate analysis and determination below based on other evidence.

The second set of evidence, the statement issued by Jihua Freight, proves that the cargo owner’s customs declaration form, packing list (weight list), export special invoice, and customs declaration power of attorney were all sent directly to Jihua Freight by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's cross-examination believed that the evidence precisely proved the fact that the plaintiff entrusted the defendant, and the defendant entrusted Jihua Freight; the content of the customs declaration documents sent directly by the plaintiff to Jihua Freight was inconsistent with the facts and would not be confirmed. This court believes that the statement is an original stamped with the official seal of Jihua Freight, and its authenticity can be determined. According to the situation statement of Jihua Freight, "Our company was entrusted by Shanghai Deneng International Cargo Transport Agency Co., Ltd. in late May 2007 to represent Zhejiang Zhongda Huatai Textile Co., Ltd. to declare a batch of export goods to Shanghai Pujiang Customs..." Based on the contents of the plaintiff's third set of evidence, the defendant made a statement to the customs about "entrusted by the customer, our company declared the goods exported to Haiphong through the customs broker on May 29, 2007...", it can be concluded that the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to act as an agent. Customs declaration, the fact that the defendant accepted the entrustment and then entrusted Jihua Freight. As for the section where the plaintiff directly sent customs declaration documents to Jihua Freight, there is no other evidence to corroborate it except Jihua Freight’s statement. Jihua Freight did not appear in court to accept the questioning from the plaintiff and this court. Therefore, the content of this section’s proof cannot be verified. This court will not accept it.

The third set of evidence, the tax payment certificate for the returned export goods, proves that the plaintiff has applied for tax payment to the tax department as "all polyester knitted fabrics" because the export transaction failed. The plaintiff has no objection to the authenticity, but believes that no matter what the name of the goods is, tax refunds will be involved. Since the plaintiff confirmed the authenticity of this evidence, this court determined the validity and probative power of the evidence.

The fourth set of evidence, the customs declaration form numbered 222520081258043607 and the attached documents (this set of evidence was obtained by this court from the Shanghai Customs Archives Department at the defendant’s request), proves that the import container number is GESU5142907 is inconsistent with the container used for export. It cannot be determined that the imported and exported goods are the same batch of goods. The plaintiff’s alleged loss has nothing to do with customs declaration behavior. The plaintiff's cross-examination believed that the goods had been unpacked at the destination port, and after quality problems were discovered, they were repacked and returned for shipping, so the box numbers were inconsistent. This court believes that this set of evidence was taken from customs files and the validity of the evidence should be recognized. As for the difference between the number of the returned container and that of the exported container, the plaintiff's cross-examination opinion was reasonable and this court accepted it. On the contrary, according to the "Customs Goods Inspection Record Sheet" attached to this set of evidence, the reason why the customs did not identify the returned goods was that the actual quality of the goods did not match the export declaration name, not the inconsistent container number. Therefore, this set of evidence It is not enough to deny the relationship between the plaintiff’s losses and the customs declaration error.

The defendant also provided the fifth set of evidence in court, MSN online chat records, proving that the plaintiff informed the defendant that the product name of the goods under the 917YHTB039 consignment note was "all-polyester knitted fabric." The plaintiff believed that the time limit for proof had expired and the authenticity could not be confirmed. This court believes that the evidence is only a computer printout in form, and the identities of the two parties in the conversation are not clear, so the validity of the evidence cannot be determined.

After reviewing the evidence and combining the statements of the plaintiff and the defendant in the trial, this court found the following facts:

In May 2007, the plaintiff entrusted the defendant to handle cases with numbers 917YHTB038 and 917YHTB039 respectively. Under this business, we provide shipping export agency business for goods from Shanghai to Haiphong, Vietnam. Among them, the goods under the entrusted business No. 917YHTB039 should be "cotton elastic knitted fabric". According to the plaintiff, it sent the defendant a consignment note for export goods. The name and specification of the goods indicated on the consignment note were "95CTN5SPANDEXSINGLEJERSEY150GSMCUTTABLEWIDTH58〃". Based on this translation, the correct Chinese product name of the goods can be obtained as "cotton elastic knitted fabric".

When handling the export declaration of the goods, the plaintiff provided the defendant with the cargo owner’s customs declaration form, packing list (weight list), special export invoice, and customs declaration power of attorney required for customs declaration. Among the above-mentioned documents, the product name shown on the packing list (weight list) and export-specific invoice stamped with the name of the plaintiff and the signature of the legal representative is "100POLYTRICOT", and the name of the product shown on the cargo owner's customs declaration form and customs declaration power of attorney is "Quan Polyester". Knitted fabric”. After accepting the entrustment, the plaintiff actually handled the export customs declaration matters through Jihua Freight, a non-party outside the case. In the end, the customs approved the export of this batch of goods as "100 POLYTRICOT". In July 2007, the plaintiff claimed that the goods had been returned due to quality reasons and entrusted the defendant to handle the return shipment and import customs clearance. On September 4 of the same year, the goods were shipped to Shanghai. During the import declaration, the customs on-site inspection found that the actual quality of the goods was cotton knitted fabric, which was inconsistent with the "polyester knitted fabric" declared during the export declaration, so it was not determined on the spot that the goods were returned goods. On October 24 of the same year, the defendant issued a statement to the customs at the request of the plaintiff, saying, "Entrusted by the customer, our company declared the goods exported to Haiphong through the customs broker on May 29, 2007. Due to negligence, the correct product name was The cotton elastic knitted fabric was mistakenly reported as a polyester knitted fabric. Since the cotton elastic knitted fabric does not involve commodity inspection and quota, our company has not been able to correct this error in time. Due to quality problems, we need to arrange for return. Modify it to "Sense", but the customs did not agree to the modification. After that, the plaintiff entrusted Shanghai Jinghai Freight Co., Ltd. to handle import customs clearance procedures. On January 15, 2008, the customs made a decision to tax the import of the goods involved. On January 16 and 17 of the same year, after re-declaring and paying import duties of RMB 62,929.70, import value-added tax of RMB 117,678.54, and late declaration fees of RMB 42,013, the goods involved were released by the customs. The import declaration form reviewed and released by the customs shows that the product name is "cotton elastic knitted fabric" and the ingredient content is "97COTTON3SPANDEX, width 58". In addition, due to the overdue use of the container, the plaintiff also paid a container overdue usage fee of RMB 38,007.53.

This court believes that based on the facts that have been ascertained, the plaintiff entrusted the defendant with the export declaration of the goods involved in the case. After the defendant accepted the entrustment, it actually handled it through Jihua Freight, a third party outside the case. Therefore, there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. Established a freight forwarding entrustment relationship including export customs declaration.

On this basis, the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the defendant was at fault for misdeclaring the name of the goods during the customs declaration process. In the customs declaration entrustment relationship, the principal has the obligation to inform the trustee of detailed and accurate cargo information, and the trustee should handle specific customs declaration matters strictly in accordance with the information provided by the principal. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that as the principal, it had sent a consignment letter for export goods to the defendant, and the consignment letter indicated the detailed information of the goods. This court believes that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant received the export cargo consignment note. Even if the defendant did receive the consignment note for export goods, the consignment note only had the English expression “95CTN5SPANDEXSINGLEJERSEY150GSMCUTTABLEWIDTH58〃” and no Chinese translation. It is obviously beyond the scope of the freight forwarder's obligations and abilities to require the defendant to translate the accurate Chinese name of the goods as "cotton elastic knitted fabric". Moreover, the expression “95CTN5SPANDEXSINGLEJERSEY150GSMCUTTABLEWIDTH58〃” is professional in the textile industry. According to common sense, the defendant, as a freight forwarder, cannot translate the name of the disputed goods into “polyester knitted fabric” without the plaintiff’s confirmation. The plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove that it had clearly informed the defendant that the Chinese name of the goods was "cotton elastic knitted fabric." On the contrary, the existing evidence proves that the packing list (weight list) and export special invoice stamped with the name of the plaintiff and the signature of the legal representative all show that the name of the goods is "100POLYTRICOT", and the corresponding Chinese translation should be "Polyester Knitted Fabric" . It can be seen that there is no discrepancy between the product name declared by the defendant to the customs and the product name provided by the plaintiff. Even if the product name is inconsistent with the actual condition of the goods, the defendant is not responsible.

In addition, although the customs finally determined that the name of the imported goods was "cotton elastic knitted fabric", its ingredient content was "97COTTON3SPANDEX", while the ingredient content of the exported goods claimed by the plaintiff was "95COTTON5SPANDEX", and the two were not completely consistent.

As for the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had promised to take full responsibility, this court will not accept it because there is no evidence to prove it.

To sum up, the defendant made no fault in performing its agency obligations and does not need to be liable for the plaintiff’s losses.

In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 64 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and the first paragraph of Article 406 of the "Contract Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that the judgment is as follows:

The plaintiff Zhejiang Zhongda Huatai Textile Co., Ltd.’s claim will not be supported.

The case acceptance fee in this case was RMB 5,209.43. Due to the application of simplified procedures, the fee was reduced by half to RMB 2,604.72, which was borne by the plaintiff Zhejiang Zhongda Huatai Textile Co., Ltd.

If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you can submit an appeal to this court within fifteen days from the date of delivery of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the Shanghai Higher People's Court.

Chief Judge Jin Xiaofeng

Secretary Sun Ye