There is A transportation agency contract between Company A and Company D。 In April 2017, Company A sent a booking order to Company B, entrusting Company B to book and ship the goods involved。Subsequently, Company B booked shipping space from Company C for the goods involved。In April 2017, C accepted the booking application and issued the registered Bill of Lading numbered XXXX on April 26 of the same year。The Bill of lading is stated to be of shipper Company D, loading port is Jingzhou Port, China, discharging port is Chittagong, Bangladesh, and the goods are used shuttle looms, which are loaded in 8 40ft dry cargo containers。On June 6, 2017, Company C shipped the container to Chittagong, Bangladesh and unloaded it。On October 26, 2017, Company C received the letter of telex release guarantee, with the seal and signature of Company D respectively in the "Name of Shipper Company (official seal)" and "Responsible Person of Shipper Company (signature)" of the letter of telex release guarantee。The goods involved have not been picked up since their arrival at the port of discharge。On May 30, 2018, the agent of the port of destination C signed and received the letter of abandonment sent by the consignee。

In addition, the salvage value certificate issued by C company shows that the salvage value of the box is 152,000 yuan。If the 8 containers involved cannot be returned, the replacement price of each container is RMB 19,000, and the total value of the 8 containers is RMB 152,000。

Company C claims to Company A, Company B, and Company D for the overdue usage fee and compensation for the value of the container。

Court decision

C company's claim is dismissed。

Focus of dispute

Can Company C claim compensation for container delay and container loss to Company A, B and D？

Lawyer's analysis

In the maritime cargo transport relationship, the problems of container delay and compensation are very common。There have also been huge controversies over the late return of containers。This case is about the multiple legal relationship issues caused by the container expiration, which are summarized as follows:

1. Legal relationship between Company C and companies A, B and D。

Company A was entrusted by Company D to handle the export of the goods involved。Company A issued a booking order to Company B for the goods involved, and Company B booked the space from Company C。C accepted the booking and issued the relevant bill of lading，The carrier and shipper listed in the bill of lading are Company C and Defendant Company D respectively，And the telex release guarantee letter accepted by A also indicates that the shipper of the goods involved is D company，Therefore, it can be concluded that the contractual relationship of carriage of goods by sea between Company C and Company D is legally established and valid，According to the principle of relativity of contract，Company C shall have the right to claim against Company D for losses incurred under the contract of carriage of goods by sea。

In addition, Company C believes that companies B and D should disclose the true shipper, otherwise failure to disclose should be recognized as the shipper and thus shipper liability。In this case, companies B and D are freight forwarders and are not parties to the contract of carriage。It undertakes the obligation of booking space, and when the booking is completed, its obligation will be fulfilled immediately。As for the shipper's disclosure, the bill of lading and letter of guarantee prove that the shipper is Company D。It cannot be proved that companies B and D did not disclose the true shipper and caused the loss of Company C。Therefore, C cannot claim compensation from companies B and D based on the loss caused by the uncollected container at the port of discharge。

2. Is the container overdue necessarily compensated？

The container embodies its economic value in the process of turnover, so it has become an industry practice to pay the overdue usage fee for the overdue use of the container。The goods involved in the case were stranded at the port of destination because no one picked them up, resulting in the container involved in the case being occupied for a long time and unable to be transferred, resulting in economic losses for the carrier, and D company as the shipper should pay compensation。However, the container is overdue, if the carrier is lazy to recover the container resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations and the extension of the cost, the carrier needs to bear the adverse consequences。

(1) Limitation of action

According to the "Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the limitation period of the carrier's right to claim compensation against the shipper, consignee or the holder of the bill of lading in connection with the carriage of goods by sea"，The carrier claims compensation from the shipper, consignee or holder of the bill of lading in connection with the carriage of goods by sea，The limitation period is one year，It is calculated from the date on which the right holder knows or should know that the right has been infringed。In this case, Company C's claim for compensation of container overdue usage fee shall count from the date on which the plaintiff knew or should have known that his rights were infringed。The goods involved in the case were discharged at the port on June 6, 2017, with a 10-day rent-free period, so the free use period of the container loaded with the goods is limited to June 16。Because the goods are not picked up at the port of destination, the containers involved in the case are not returned in time after the expiration of the free use period, starting from June 17, the next day after the expiration of the rent-free period, Company D shall pay the container overdue use fee。The evidence shows that Company B has clearly told Company C at the beginning of 2018 that "the consignee has not taken up the goods, the goods are not needed, please dispose of them according to the abandoned goods".。However, C did not deal with the matter until June 4, 2018, when the statute of limitations was about to expire, and the only defendant listed was Company B。According to the information contained in the bill of lading and the telex release guarantee letter, the shipper is D company can be clearly identified。However, Company C only named Company B, the freight forwarder entrusted by layers, as the defendant。After the court's explanation to C Company, C company still did not apply to add D company as the defendant in this case, and did not explicitly claim its container extension fee to D company。

C company, knowing the qualified defendant, sued the unqualified defendant, thereby circumventing litigation jurisdiction and causing the interruption of the statute of limitations。The court held that his behavior ran counter to the original intention of the statute of limitations system, and was not conducive to the correct direction of the market and the maintenance of market order。Moreover, the purpose of the carrier to charge the container overdue use fee is to urge the user to return the container in time and accelerate the circulation of the container。If the loss is caused by the failure of the user to return the container in time, the carrier shall bring a lawsuit within the time limit prescribed by law, otherwise it will lose the right to win the claim。In this case, although Company C filed the lawsuit within the one-year statute of limitations, Company B is not an eligible defendant。Company C also filed an additional application, which has also exceeded the statute of limitations of 1 year, and the object of the application for additional is still not an eligible defendant。Company C's claim to the freight forwarder with whom it is not directly related does not constitute a limitation interruption of the claim to the shipper, so Company C has lost the right to win。

(2) Compensation for container losses

When the goods arrive at the port of discharge, the carrier shall dispose of the goods on the basis that the laws of the country in which the port of discharge is located are not violated if the goods are not taken up or the consignee refuses to take up the goods。In this case, Company C, as the carrier, had no one to pick up the goods after they were unloaded at the port, no one to pick up the goods after receiving the telex release guarantee, and no one to know that the consignee had abandoned the goods. Since Company C controlled the containers involved, Company C had enough time to timely handle the goods, recover the containers involved, and actively fulfill the obligation of impairment reduction。If Company C handles the goods in time, it can recover the containers involved and put them back into use. However, because Company C was lazy in exercising its rights, the goods involved were shelved for a long time and the containers involved were occupied for a long time。

In addition, it is difficult to determine the loss for Company C to claim that the container cannot be recovered, and there is no evidence to prove that the container has been damaged or lost。As a carrier, Company C only proves that the goods involved are in the storage yard of the port of destination, and has not provided evidence to prove that the goods involved have been supervised by the customs of the port of destination or have been disposed of, nor has it provided evidence to prove that it has lost the control over the goods and the containers involved。The container involved still objectively exists and cannot be regarded as a loss。Even after the goods are auctioned off by customs, the containers may be returned。

Therefore, through the study of this case, although the problem of container expiration often occurs in the maritime transport of goods, the carrier may have to bear certain legal responsibilities when the container expiration is ignored and allowed to increase the loss。Therefore, for the container overdue, we recommend that the carrier deal with it in a timely manner, and if necessary, entrust lawyers to claim interests through litigation。