OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-tsc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

Thanks again roberto, your input is adding weight to Flemming's 
interpretation. The more we discuss this, the more I am persuaded that 
the idea of "Consignment as Contractual information" is ambiguous.

Would it be more appropriate to think of...
Shipment as the commercial/trade level arrangements seen by the 
Importer/Exporter (Customer/Supplier). 
and make our definition: "An identifiable collection of one or more 
goods items (available to be) transported from the original shipper, to 
the ultimate recipient. Note: A shipment can be transported in different 

Consignment as the logistical/transport level arrangements as seen by 
the Carriers, Forwarders, etc.
and make the definition: "A separately identifiable collection of goods 
items (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee 
via one or more modes of transport. Note: A consignment can composed of 
more thn one shipment."

Any comments?

roberto@javest.com wrote:
> 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
> 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
>>> 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

tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]