涉外海事海商诉讼

——一起针对*国航运公司无单放货的胜诉案件

【案情简介】2020年*月份，JG公司（以下简称JG）与*国客商MA达成汽车零配件的国际货物买卖合同，合同约定装运港宁波，转运***，目的港*国*****港，贸易方式FOB。合同签订后，JG通过NB外轮公司以多式联运的方式将货物交给*国航运公司承运，NB外轮公司以*国航运公司代理人身份向JG签发了三份*国航运公司的正本提单。货物到达*国之后，*国航运公司在没有核实正本提单的情况下就将货物放行给MA，导致JG的货款无法收回。遂成讼。

【律师代理】

本案委托之前，代理律师向JG的负责人详细了解案件情况，仔

细分析案卷材料，从现有材料中能够反映*国航运公司无单放货的事实，且无单放货行为没有法定免责事由。故接受委托提起诉讼，要求*国航运公司承担货款损失和相应利息的赔偿责任；对于内陆运费损失，原告一并主张。

主体名称：本案提单上记载承运人是A*&B*，根据字面翻译是*国航运和物流服务公司。裁判文书公开网也查找到多份以*国航运和物流服务公司（E*&L*）为主体的判决书，所以在起诉时就以此作为诉讼主体诉至宁波海事法院。法院在审理过程中发现该院历年涉及*国航运和物流服务公司的主体名称是*国航运公司，该公司在交通部注册无船承运人使用的中文名是*国航运公司E*&L*。虽然其他法院有使用不同中文名的情况，但考虑到诉讼主体名称的一致性以及方便统计、查阅，宁波海事法院决定使用*国航运公司作为E*&L*的中文名。

在涉外诉讼中，在不同时段不同法院处理的多起案件中，保持境外主体中文名字的统一性和一致性是比较困难的事情，笔者认为翻译因素和文化认知因素以及其他多方面原因都是导致这种情况发生的原因。宁波海事法院以交通部备案主体名称为依据进行主体名称统一化，大大方便了同一主体案件的查阅和统计。

案件送达：*国航运公司在中国没有设立代表处，也没有分公司、子公司。提起诉讼前我方多次通过*国航运公司的代理人NB外轮公司和北京的代理商沟通无单放货事宜。我方在起诉时提交了与NB外轮公司和北京的代理商进行沟通的电子邮件，以及我方直接与*国航运公司联系的往来邮件。《中华人民共和国和*国联邦民主共和国关于民事和商事司法协助的条约》对*国国的主体送达设定了送达路径，宁波海事法院根据条约送达的同时，邮寄司法文书至*国航运公司本国地址和代理人处，以在先收到时间为送达时间，大大加快了案件的办理进程。

无单放货的识别

Identification of unbilled releases

本案货物装在一个40尺高柜集装箱，集装箱流转轨迹显示2020年7月份集装箱已空箱流转，在双方邮件往来中，*国航运公司承认已放货，三份正本提单仍然在原告处，所以本案被告无单放货的事实明确。

在无单放货引发的诉讼中，如何识别无单放货是一个难题。一般情况下，从以下几个方面进行初步识别：

In the litigations arising from the unbillable goods, how to identify the unbillable acts is a difficult problem. In general, the identification is made from the following aspects.

1. 正本提单持有人手持正本提单在目的港要求提货却不能；

2. 货物整柜运输的，集装箱已空箱流转；

3. 正本提单没有从境内卖方流转到境外买方，但目的港公开市场上有所涉货物销售的；

4. 承运人承认放货；（本案中，原告提交集装箱空箱流转凭证，被告承认无单放货）

5. 货运代理人告知提单持有人货物已放行的事实；

6. 目的港集装箱堆场出具的提货证明。

I.The original bill of lading holder requests for the goods at the port of destination but can not.

II.The whole container of goods transported, the container has been empty flow.

III.The original bill of lading has not been transferred from the domestic seller to the buyer out, but the open market at the port of destination involves the sell of the goods loaded in the container.

4. The carrier acknowledges the release of goods; (in this case, the plaintiff submits a certificate of empty container flow, the defendant acknowledges the release of goods without a bill of lading)

5. Freight agent informs the bill of lading holder of the fact that the goods have been released.

6.The container yard at the port of destination issued the certificate of delivery.

本案不存在无正本提单交付货物的免责事由

There is no exemption for the delivery of goods without original bill of lading in this case.

最高人民法院《关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》规定了几种无正本提单交付货物的免责事由。第七条规定“承运人依照提单载明的卸货港所在地法律规定，必须将承运到港的货物交付给当地海关或者港口当局的，不承担无正本提单交付货物的民事责任。”第八条规定“承运到港的货物超过法律规定期限无人向海关申报，被海关提取并依法变卖处理，或者法院依法裁定拍卖承运人留置的货物，承运人主张免除交付货物责任的，人民法院应予支持。”第九条规定“承运人按照记名提单托运人的要求中止运输、返还货物、变更到达地或者将货物交给其他收货人，持有记名提单的收货人要求承运人承担无正本提单交付货物民事责任的，人民法院不予支持。”第十条规定“承运人签发一式数份正本提单，向最先提交正本提单的人交付货物后，其他持有相同正本提单的人要求承运人承担无正本提单交付货物民事责任的，人民法院不予支持。”本案中，*国航运公司交付货物的行为不符合上述任何一种情形，故*国航运公司不存在免责事由，需要承担赔偿责任。

The supreme people's court " several issues on the trial of the case of delivery of goods without original bill of lading applicable law provisions" provides several exemptions for delivery of goods without original bill of lading. Article 7 states:”If a carrier is obligated, according to the provisions of the laws of the place where the port of discharge is located stated in the bill of lading, to deliver the goods arrived at the port of discharge to the local authority in charge of customs or port, the carrier shall not bear the civil liability for delivery of goods without any original bill of lading.”Article 8 states:”In the case no customs declaration is made for the goods that have arrived at the port of discharge within the time limit specified by laws and the relevant customs collects the goods and sells them legally, or the relevant court renders a decision, in accordance with law, to sell the goods left by the carrier, if the carrier alleges the exemption from liability for delivery of goods, the people's court shall uphold such allegation.” Article 9 states:”Where a carrier, according to the requirements by the consignor of a straight B/L, suspends the shipment, returns the goods, changes the port of destination or delivers the goods to other consignees, if the consignee who holds the straight B/L requests the carrier to bear the civil liability for delivery of goods without the original bill of lading, the people's court shall not uphold such request.” Article 10 states:”Where a carrier issues an original B/L in multiple copies, after the carrier delivers the goods to the person who first submits the original B/L, if other persons who hold the same original B/L request the carrier to bear the civil liability for delivery of goods without the original B/L, the people's court shall not uphold such request.” In this case, the delivery of goods by Ethiopian Shipping Company does not fit any of the above circumstances, so Ethiopian Shipping Company is not exempted from civil liability.

损失确定：

Determination of loss

我国《海商法》第55条规定：“货物灭失的赔偿额，按照货物的实际价值计算；货物损坏的赔偿额，按照货物受损前后实际价值的差额或者货物的修复费用计算。货物的实际价值，按照货物装船时的价值加保险费加运费计算。” 根据此条规定，在无单放货的损失赔偿中采用CIF的计价方式进行赔偿。本案采用FOB贸易方式，我方没有产生海运费和保险费的损失，仅是货款损失。我方在出口时严格按照双方约定的价格进行报关，出口报关单上记载的货值即是我方的实际货值损失的计算基础。

Article 55 of China's Maritime Law provides that ‘The compensation for loss of goods shall be calculated in accordance with the actual value of the goods; the compensation for damage to the goods shall be calculated in accordance with the difference between the actual value of the goods before and after the damage or the cost of repairing the goods. The actual value of the goods is calculated in accordance with the value of the goods at the time of loading on board plus the insurance premium and freight.’According to this article, the damages in the case of unbilled release of goods are compensated by the valuation method of CIF. In this case, the FOB trade method was adopted, and we did not incur the loss of sea freight and insurance, but only the loss of payment for the goods. When we exported, we declared the goods in accordance with the price agreed by both parties strictly, and the value of the goods recorded on the export declaration is the basis for calculating our actual loss of goods value.

【法院判决】

[Court Decision]

本案经过充分的庭前沟通，经过一次开庭审理，法院当庭宣判支持我方关于要求*国航运公司承担货值损失和利息损失赔偿责任的诉讼请求。关于我方要求赔偿在履行贸易合同时产生了内陆费用损失，法院认为内陆费用不是无单放货产生的损失，即便*国航运公司没有无单放货，原告也需要自行承担该部分内陆费用，故对此不予赔偿。

After a full pre-trial communication and a court hearing, the court ruled in favor of our claim for compensation for the loss of cargo value and interest incurred by the Ethiopian Shipping Company. Regarding our claim for compensation for the loss of inland expenses incurred in the performance of the trade contract, the court held that the inland expenses were not losses arising from the unbilled release of goods, and even if the Ethiopian shipping company did not release the goods without a bill of lading, the plaintiff had to bear the inland expenses on its own, so it would not compensate for this.

本案起诉前代理律师多次致电交通部、多省交通厅确认沟通*国航运公司作为中国无船承运人的备案和保证金事宜。了解到自2019年以来，交通部取消了对无船承运人的备案和保证金制度，将无船承运人备案工作落实到省级交通厅。NB外轮公司在签发*国航运公司的正本提单时，交通部早已取消了*国航运公司的备案，*国航运公司也没有及时到省级交通厅进行无船承运人备案和提单登记。《最高人民法院关于审理海上货运代理纠纷案件若干问题的规定》第十二条规定货运代理企业接受未在我国交通主管部门办理提单登记的无船承运业务经营者的委托签发提单，当事人主张由货运代理企业和无船承运业务经营者对提单项下的损失承担连带责任的，人民法院应予支持。根据此条规定，NB外轮公司在签发提单时明知*国航运公司没有进行无船承运人备案，不具有中国境内的无船承运人身份，仍然以代理人身份签发*国航运公司的提单，原告有权要求NB外轮公司承担*国航运赔偿责任的连带责任。但考虑到需要继续与NB外轮公司进行业务合作，故原告不予追究NB外轮公司的连带责任。

Before the prosecution of this case, the attorney called the Ministry of Transportation and several provincial departments of transportation several times to confirm the communication of the filing and bonding of Ethiopian Shipping Company as a NVOCC in China. We learned that since 2019, the Ministry of Transportation has abolished the filing and bonding system for NVOCCs and implemented the filing of NVOCCs to provincial departments of transportation.When NB Foreign Shipping Company issued the original bill of lading of Ethiopian Shipping Company, the Ministry of Transportation has cancelled the filing of Ethiopian Shipping Company, and Ethiopian Shipping Company did not timely go to the provincial department of transportation for NVOCC filing and bill of lading registration. Article 12 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Disputes over Maritime Freight Forwarders stipulates that If the freight forwarder accepts the entrustment of the NVOCC business operator who has not registered the bill of lading with the competent Transportation Department of our country to issue the bill of lading, and the parties claim that the freight forwarder and the NVOCC business operator shall bear joint liability for the losses under the bill of lading, the people's court shall support them. According to this article, the NB Foreign Shipping Company issued the bill of lading with the knowledge that the Ethiopian Shipping Company did not make NVOCC record and did not have the NVOCC status in China, but still issued the bill of lading of the Ethiopian Shipping Company as an agent, so the plaintiff was entitled to request the NB Foreign Shipping Company to bear the joint and several liability of the Ethiopian Shipping Company's liability. However, considering the need to continue business with NB Foreign Shipping Company, the plaintiff will not pursue the joint and several liability of NB Foreign Shipping Company.

【相关法律】

[Related Laws]

《中华人民共和国海商法》

《最高人民法院关于审理海上货运代理纠纷案件若干问题的规定》

《中华人民共和国和*国联邦民主共和国关于民事和商事司法协助的条约》

《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》

MARITIME CODE OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Trial of Cases of Maritime Freight Forwarders

Treaty between the People's Republic of China and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters

Law of the PRC on Application of Laws to Foreign-Related Civil Relations