[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
Hello, in both cases there is a different contract as stated before: 1) Exporter with Customs Forwarder to have a complete support for documentation, customs, transport organization. NOTE: This contract is just a service organization contract - the customs forwarder has no responsabilities for the goods at all. NOTE 2: Here the Incoterms are really important (FOB, EXW, C&F, ...) 2) The Customs Forwarder (or directly the Exporter) has one or more transport contracts for the consignment of goods. NOTE: here the Carrier has the responsability of the goods. I think these are all the main differences between these contracts. At the opposite I do not have now a sample about many Shipments against one Consignment... I can just suppose it is something like I describe below. Perhaps the "groupage" could be positioned into this case... Groupage is when different goods of different owners is collected for logistic/shipment reasons into one Container. Here different Exporters shipments are organized/handled by the same Carrier (and Customs Forwarder). But here, depending of the incoterm adopted/agreed there could be the need of further consignment. SAMPLE: We could say that under a sea transport a single consignment of a groupage container of goods is performed with a FOB (free-on-board) incoterm. NOTE: With other incoterms where a door-2-door consignment is required we'll have a many-2-many case (many shipment, many consignments) even if we have a common sea transport. I could ask better about this to a friend of mine which is Shipping Agent and Customs Forwarder, also in the past he was dealing with Logistics too. What I am going to understand is if we have really many different shipment and transport contracts under a "groupage" case. If you have further samples about this please let me know. Ciao Roberto Cisternino > 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 > Roberto Cisternino
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]