Policy & Compliance
elements from Switzerland to Sweden. The forwarder subcontracted the carrying out of the transport to a Bulgarian carrier. The driver failed to present the goods at a Customs office in Sweden and as a result the carrier was subsequently ordered by the Swedish authorities to pay SKE360,463 worth of duty and import tax. The carrier filed a case against the freight forwarder demanding that the forwarder pay the monies as the carrier insisted the forwarder had not instructed them that the consignment should be presented to Customs upon entry into the European Union. Disputed claim The forwarder disputed this claim on the grounds of Article 11 of the Convention, insisting that it was the carrier’s responsibility to follow the correct Customs procedures at origin and destination. This argument found the court’s approval, which in turn stated as follows: “[The] court [is] not in agreement
with [the carrier’s] claim that information on the exact building or buildings the driver should go to when he arrived at the border crossing at Thayngen is information that must be submitted to the carrier pursuant to Art 11 of the CMR... The court finds that the e-mail communication... immediately after the truck crossed the border into the EU on 30 March 2021 cannot lead to [the carrier]... not being responsible for the failure to present the Customs documents. “If [the carrier] were to escape documents, it would firstly require a clear and unequivocal statement from [the carrier’s] side that the Customs documents had not been presented to the Customs authorities and then an acceptance of this relationship from [the forwarder’s] side. “[The carrier’s] statement in the email of 30 March 2021 at 17:04:49 by that ‘the Customs officer they saw the papers and do not do anything tell him to go only close ticket’ is not a clear and unequivocal indication that the Customs responsibility for the lack of presentation of the Customs
documents were not presented to the Customs authorities. On the contrary, the email shows that the driver was under the delusion that the documents had been presented to the Customs authorities.” Court ruling The Danish court’s ruling clearly states that it is the carrier’s responsibility to ensure that the Customs documents provided by the sender are used correctly and all procedures followed even if the sender has not provided the carrier with detailed instructions on how to use them. While, to BIFA’s knowledge, Article 11 of the CMR has not been tested in the UK in cases involving undischarged transit movements or goods not presented at Customs for clearance, we can certainly see UK judges adopting a similar approach consequently provide a high degree of protection for forwarders relying on third-party carriers moving goods covered by their transit or similar guarantees. in comparable scenarios. Article 11 of the CMR may
“ Article 11 of the CMR may consequently provide a high degree of protection for forwarders relying on third-party
carriers moving goods
covered by their transit or similar guarantees
Delivering debt recovery & outsourced services to the freight, transport,
Business Support Services
Debt Recovery
Customer Care
Receivables Management
IT and Application Services
Software Solutions
controlaccount.com 01527 386 610
March 2024 | 11
www.bifa.org
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker