[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 consignments." 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 > > 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 > > > -- regards 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]