Page 237 - DMGT546_INTERNATIONAL_TRADE_PROCEDURE_AND_DOCUMENTATION

International Trade Procedures and Documentation

Notes

Case Study Containerised Cargo: Safely into the Future?

he case that I am going to discuss today could have come out of the pages of
detective fiction. It is, however, a true story which highlights the fact that
Tcontainerisation has certainly not meant an end to claims for the Cargo Underwriter.
Setting the Scene
In this case, the insured shipment comprised readymade garments, which were sold by a
shipper in South-East Asia to a buyer in Durban, South Africa.
The goods were sold on a “DP at sight” (documents against payment) basis. Freight was
prepaid and insurance was taken out by the shipper in South-East Asia. Ten separate
Certificates of Insurance were issued, for a combined insured value in excess of 4 million
US dollars.
The goods were packed into ten 40' containers. The containers were loaded onboard two
vessels at a South-East Asian port. Ten separate Bills of Lading were issued. The vessels
proceeded to Singapore, where the containers were transshipped onto five vessels for
onward carriage to Durban.

The vessels arrived at Durban, and berthed at the Container Terminal. In every case, the
containers were landed from the vessels shortly after arrival.
The containers were uplifted from the port by privately owned transport, within one
week of having been landed, and were delivered to an address outside Johannesburg, 600
kilometres from Durban. The empty containers were turned in to the premises of various
privately owned container depots in Johannesburg.
A claim for the theft of the entire shipment was instituted by the shipper. We were instructed
by the Insurers some four months after the alleged theft had taken place.

Our starting point was to establish contact with the purported buyer.
The South African Buyer
The buyer’s premises were located in a small building situated within an industrial area
near Durban. The building was in a state of considerable disrepair.

After some difficulty, contact was made with the owner of the company. He repeatedly
refused to speak to us. However, after gentle persuasion, he eventually stated that:
1. He had not ordered the goods in question, nor had he ever heard of or had any
dealings with this particular shipper;
2. The first time he had heard about the goods was when his bankers had contacted
him and advised that they had received documents relating to the goods from the
shipper’s bankers;
3. He had instructed his bankers to return the documents to the shipper’s bankers;
He refused to say any more, and referred us to his lawyers. His lawyers refused to speak
to us.
Although we were less than satisfied with his statement, we found no firm evidence
during our investigation to suggest that he had taken delivery of any of the containers or
goods.
Contd...

232 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY