[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. Now I think we can improve the definition. Shipment "The identifiable collection of one or more goods items to be transported between the original consignor and the ultimate consignee. Note: A shipment can be transported in different consignments (eg split for logistical purposes)." Consignment "The transportation of an individually identifiable collection of goods items from one consignor to one consignee via one or more modes of transport. Note: A consignment can comprise of more than one shipment (eg consolidated by a freight forwarder)." I understand what you say about the different types of contract that may come into play, but am not sure we need explain that in our definition. What do you think? roberto@javest.com wrote: > 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 > > > -- 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]