Policy & Compliance
VGM-related issues are relatively infrequent but their impact can be substantial, as is highlighted below. As a freight forwarder can be held responsible, Members should review existing procedures and ensure they have adequate cover for any potential liabilities The importance of correctly declaring container weights
T he system of verifying the weight of shipping containers came into force in July 2016 by requiring the shipper or the freight forwarder to provide a Veri fi ed Gross Mass (VGM) to the carrier. These weights are used in ship loading plans. To date, in the UK there have been relatively few reported breaches of the regulations. However, those that have occurred in the rest of the world, due to the weight discrepancies involved, have been signi fi cant. Responsibility Under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requirements, the shipper named on the bill of lading is the party responsible for providing the maritime (ocean) carrier (master) and the terminal operator (terminal representative) with the verified gross mass (VGM) of a packed container. In the UK there are two methods to calculate the VGM. Under Method 1, the fully loaded container is weighed on a weighbridge. In the UK this is often performed by the port, on a chargeable basis, as the vehicle carrying the container enters the terminal. Under Method 2, often referred to as the ‘Aggregation Method’, the weights of all individual shipments, plus dunnage and the TARE weight of the container, are added together to produce the VGM. In the UK, before a shipper or forwarder can use Method 2, it has to be approved to do so by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). Incidents BIFA has identified two incidents, neither of which originated in the UK, where weight-related issues highlighted the problems that can occur if procedures are not adhered to. In the case of Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi Epe v Maersk there was a substantial difference between the VGM (provided by the terminal operator) and the
shipper declared weights (as per the shipping documents) for a shipment presented to the carrier in 2019 for freight loaded at Jebel Ali. Many of the shipper declared weights were only 30% or 40% of the VGM. Unbeknown to either party there was alleged fraudulent activity by the shipper. Stournaras took the case to an English Commercial Court alleging that there was a duty of care obliging the carrier to cross- check the VGM and shipper’s declared weights and not issue an unclaused bill of lading where the discrepancy was significant. The Commercial Court concluded that Maersk was not liable to Stournaras because, based on the facts, Maersk had no reason to suspect that the shipper- declared weights might be fraudulent. As a result, it did not know, nor ought to have known or been put on notice, that there was a reason not to issue clean bills of lading. The duty under Art III rule 3(c) of the Hague Rules was for Maersk to assess the “apparent order and condition of the goods”. The apparent order and condition of cargo refers to its external condition as would be apparent from a reasonable examination. The weight of a container would not be apparent from an inspection of the external condition of the container. The court acknowledged that if there was a significant discrepancy between declared and actual weights, the carrier should flag that and an unclaused bill of lading implied that there was nothing wildly at odds with the bill of lading quantity. However, given the court’s factual conclusions,
“ Breaches of the VGM regulations that have occurred in the rest of the world, due to the weight discrep - ancies involved, have been signi fi cant
12 | May 2025
www.bifa.org
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker