Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

[roberto@javest.com]

Hello TSC,

I agree completely with the "One Shipment - Many Consignments" requirement.

Commonly a "Shipment" is required by an "Exporter" according an "Incoterm",
this reason the Exporter starts a specific "shipment" contract with a
"Customs Forwarder" and 1/more "transport" contract with 1/more transport
carriers.
The relationship between these actors can be different case by case but it
is normal that a complete shipment could need many consignment (transports
also intermodal).

The "Booking" identifier usually is strictly connected with a shipment
(expecially by air or sea) but again a very long shipment could make use
of different carriers.

From the Customs side (as found in the SAD/DAU customs declaration) there
should be the case goods will travel across many countries, with different
customs offices, different customs forwarders, different carriers.

Then of course there is the splitted consignment case due to many reasons:
- Availability of goods
- Same shipment, different goods, same buyer.... but different receivers
(g.e. The main office of a shipping "sea" company buyes some spare parts
and need those parts are splitted and delivered to different
vessels/ports)

The result is always the same, the need of many transport contract
controlled by the same exporter often for a whole shipment with a shipment
organization made by a customs forwarder or more.

Really complex,
if I wrong something please revert.

Hope these samples are a good info.

Best regards

UBL ITLSC
co-chair
Roberto Cisternino


> Thanks for your comments.  I will review them over the next few days.
>
> In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we mean
> by shipment and consignment.  This has been almost impossible to
> clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of
> definition  I personally believe that the distinction between these two
> is grey and ambiguous in the industry.  The correct term depends on the
> context in which it is used.
>
> Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We took
> Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods items
> (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via
> one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport contract
> document".  And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one or
> more line items (available to be) transported together from the seller
> i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A
> shipment can be transported in different consignments"
>
> However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a contractual
> arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in one
> collection of goods items.  So we have viewed the Shipment as the
> logistical collection of goods items.  Just as there are cases where a
> Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases where
> a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into
> different Shipments  (for economics or ease of logistics).  The TBG3
> high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
>
> Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment can
> transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A
> Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
>
> In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the separation
> is academic.
>
> However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to One
> Shipment - Many Consignments.  In which case it does matter that we get
> the separation correct.  This is a further argument for adopting the
> simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions.
>
> Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the logistical
> details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and
> Orders).  It means any properties that may affect or vary with the
> actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under the
> Shipment.  Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements only
> (what is required).
>
> Does that help?
>
>
>
>
> Flemming Møller Hansen wrote:
>> Hi Tim!
>>
>> I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
>>
>> The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which from
>> the
>> danish requirements/proposals point of view
>> belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
>> There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you can
>> get
>> my answer:
>>
>> Notice:
>> We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
>> consignments.
>> The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
>> consignments.
>>
>> May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment) before
>> we
>> continue?
>>
>> Who have the correct definitions available?
>>
>> (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
>>
>> Best regards/
>> Med venlig hilsen
>> PROGRATOR
>>
>> Flemming Møller Hansen
>> eBusiness Consultant
>> ====================================================
>> EDI & Business Integration
>>
>> MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød
>> Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
>> Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
>>
>> http://www.progrator.dk
>> ====================================================
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date:
>> 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
>>
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> phone: +618 93352228
> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
>
>


Roberto Cisternino