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

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

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)
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.


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
>> 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
> --
> 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]