• The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.47-59
• /
• 2016

Parcel service is to deliver goods from one place to the designated destination requested according to user request. Parcel operations such as sorting, distributing, etc. or the managed information are heterogeneous by the companies. Additionally, it is impossible to support interoperability between companies with unformatted data of manual processing. Most parcel package boxes attached to paper typed waybill is attached is delivered to consignee. So, security problems such as personal information leaking are occurred, or extra processing time and logistics costs are needed due to wrong or the damaged information. Business environment of parcel service is rapidly changed as introducing unmanned delivery or the advanced technology such as Internet of Things. User want to know the accurate status or steps from parcel service request to delivery. To provide these requirements, the unified and integrated waybill information for reliable transportation of parcel service is needed. This information will provide to pickup or delivery carrier, warehouse or terminal, and parcel service user per pickup, transport, and delivery stage of parcel delivery service. Therefore, this paper defines the simplified and unified information model for parcel service waybill by analyzing information systems used for logistics unit processes that is occurred to parcel service, and manual work processes, and developing the relevant information of work flows occurred between business processes or transactions with the collected or processed information by from parcel service's stages. It is possible to share these standard model between business entities, and replacing paper typed waybill will improve national life safety as preventing security threats by paper typed waybill. As a result, it will promote the public interest from the stakeholder's perspective.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.261-283
• /
• 2013

ISBP745 has new provisions about sea waybill, road, rail or inland waterway transport documents which ISBP681 did not have provisions about. The main revisions of ISBP745 which were not existent or different from ICC Opinion are as follows: First, where B/L is required when multimodal transport is used as a modes of transport, the revisions stipulates that it is subject to UCP600 article19. this differs from previous ICC Opinion. Second, when a credit requires a transport document to indicate the name, address and contact details of a delivery agent, for the place of final destination or port of discharge, the address need not be one that is located at the place of destination or port of discharge or within the same country as that of the place of destination or port of discharge. Third, in case there exist a number of shippers and a consignee, multiple transport documents are issued. This rule has a clear stipulation on this case. Transport industry regards the indication of "LCL/FCL" or "CFS/CY" common in this case as that requiring multiple transport documents. However, ISBP745 does not regard it the case as that requiring multiple transport documents. This may cause some confusion in examination of documents. Forth, when partial shipment is allowed, and more than one set of original transport documents are presented as part of a single presentation made under one covering schedule and incorporate different dates of shipment, the earliest of these dates is to be used of the calculation of an presentation period.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.59-76
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to analyze the factors of the main selection criteria of the contract form used to conclude the sales contracts of used ships and to assist parties in selecting the most suitable contract form for trading situations. The methods of the study are based on identifying the factors from the questionnaires using analytic hierarchy process analysis, following the selection of typical details through interviews with the S&P Broker Group and finding the solutions that match each detail. The analysis shows that ship traders prefer the Norwegian Sales Form (NSF) to NIPPONSALE for various reasons. Considering the sellers' situations, NFS is the more reasonable option for major countries, except Japan. NIPPONSALE is relatively more focused on the advantages of the buyer's conditions, including for Japan. It is important to select the appropriate clauses from these types of contract, according to the trading conditions, including the main and additional terms, in order to create a mutual agreement between the shipper and the consignee that leads to more cooperation and balances the purposes of both parties in adjusting the time for securing and disposing of the vessels.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.389-409
• /
• 2012

The Switched Bill of Lading(SBL) has been in frequent use in recent years as intermediary trade increases with the growing number of companies' overseas subsidiaries. Its frequent use, though, has brought about disputes regarding its illegal issue. Although there are several legal cases regarding this, studies on this issue are hard to find. Therefore, this study tries to provide countermeasures and precautions against unlawful issues of SBL through examining the legal cases resulting from illegal issuing practices of SBL. When the Switched Bill of Lading is issued, the shipper, consignee, port of loading and unloading, and shipping date of the original bill of lading are usually changed. Statements which may put the shipper at a disadvantageous position may also be deleted and/or the bill of lading may be either divided or integrated when it is issued. However, if the carrier issues the SBL 1)without withdrawing original BL, 2)indicating the shipping date, port of loading and port of discharge falsely, or 3)deleting the statements which may give him disadvantages, it may be regarded as an illegal issue. These unlawful issues of SBL may pose a huge threat to the shipper, banks and the parties relating to the trade. That is, the shipper may take a substantial loss when the goods can be delivered to a third party by SBL without his collecting the proceeds. The issuing bank and the negotiating bank may also have their security rights to the goods hampered by the illegal and improper issue of SBL. In most cases, the carrier has no choice but to issue the SBL without collecting the original BL for fear of hurting the relationship with the intermediary traders. This practice of issuing more than two sets of BL may pose a potential risk to the carrier.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.53-76
• /
• 2017

To solve the crisis of bill of lading, every effort has been made to introduce the electronic bill of lading and sea waybill on a global basis. In spite of these efforts, electronic bill of lading is not introduced practically so farm but sea waybill is used in western nations to cope with the crisis of bill of lading. But there is a practice that surrendered bill of lading is used insead of sea waybill in Korea, China and Japan to do so. The surrendered bill of lading faces the problem that it is not considered legally as bill of lading and the decisions rendered by each nation's courts are different according to the usages of surrendered bill of lading. So careful consideration must be made in regard to these decisions. The purpose of this paper is to avoid the disputes in advance in using the surrendered bill of lading by analyzing the precedents for the surrendered bill of lading and finding its notes. This paper analyzed the precedents regarding the surrendered bill of lading and found the notes as follows; Firstly, the surrendered bill of lading is not a kind of bill of lading but a practice that a consignee can take delivery of the cargo without loss of time at destination without redemption of original bill of lading. Secondly, the parties must take legal steps in using the surrendered bill of lading as the bill of lading acts cannot apply to the surrendered bill of lading. Thirdly, the parties should establish their practice in using the surrendered bill of lading. Fourthly, it is reasonable to use the sea waybill as a substitute for the surrendered bill of lading.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.231-250
• /
• 2016

The study attempts to consider L/G(Letter of Guarantee) in a different angle, which is internationally used as a way of commercial customs and practices in a case when the consignee wants to receive the goods without the original Bill of Lading, Thus, this study focuses more on verifying the usage of L/G in Mixed Payment System and the range of guarantee responsibility by an issuing bank through case analysis. This case uses a mixed payment method of L/C(Letter of Credit) and T/T(Telegraphic Transfer) in the transaction of goods. The issuing bank of L/C issues L/G with the amount of L/C which is the same as the amount as C/I(Commercial Invoice). However the carrier deliver all goods laden under both L/C and T/T payment with the production of L/G. In this case, because the buyer is unable to pay, the seller makes a claim for damages to the carrier that the carrier delivers the goods to the buyer against L/G. Finally, the judge gives a decision that the issuing bank of L/G should pay the whole amount of the goods. In this case, the main issue of the dispute is the range of guarantee responsibility by the issuing bank of L/G. As a result of the case analysis, the study suggests two counter strategies for smooth utilization in international trade environment. First, in the case of mixed payment system, a seller should issue a commercial invoice separately based on the amount of each settlement plan in order to clarify the liability of guarantee. Second, banks should establish a new form for L/G including a sentence for verifying liabilities of the bank's side in the current form of L/G.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.9-58
• /
• 2005

The Warsaw Convention-officially denominated the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air"- is a major multilateral agreement governing the rights and responsibilities of passengers, consignor/consignee and air carriers in international transportation. Article 29(1) of the Warsaw Convention provides that the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within 2 years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the transportation stopped. There has been disagreement as to the nature of this provision. It has been viewed on one hand as a statute of limitations, which may be tolled in appropriate circumstances. Some US Courts which have taken this approach read Article 29(2)-which states that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted-as leaving to local law the determination of when the 2-year limitation period provided for in Article 29(1) runs. Therefore, they conclude, under Article 29(2), whenever state law would toll a state statute of limitations, the statute of limitations contained in Article 29(1) would be tolled as well. On the other hand, some other US courts have viewed the 2-year provision contained in Article 29(1) as a condition precedent to the right to bring suit, which will absolutely bar any action not brought within 2 years of the events giving rise to the action. These courts view Article 29(2) as providing only that the forum court should look to the law of the forum on the question whether the plaintiff has taken the necessary measures within the 2-year period to invoke that particular court's jurisdiction over the action. These courts have placed great weight on the "legislative" history of the Convention in reaching this position, noting in particular that the delegates to the Convention expressly considered and rejected a provision, which would have incorporated local tolling provisions.