Bill Of Lading Process In CMA CGM: Overview And Optimization

Bill of Lading Process in CMA CGM

Discuss about the Bill of Lading Process in CMA CGM.

CMA CGM founded in “1978 at Marseille by Jacques Saadé” started as an “intra-Mediterranean liner” service operator. In the year 2000 the company was placed among the “top 10 worldwide” group of the selected organization of the year by “Containerisation International”. In 2012, CMA CGM received the opportunity for the delivery of biggest “container ship in the world” in terms of the volume. The “CMA CGM MARCO POLO”, is seen to be capable of transporting “16,000 TEUs and measuring 396 meters long” (Cma-cgm.com, 2018).

The “bill of lading or waybill” is an agreement which “covers the carriage” of the goods and recognized with the agreement parties “(carrier, shipper, merchant), what is being carried (goods) and key voyage information (vessel, route)”. The bill of lading consists of the documents which shows the evidences of the carriage contract, “represents goods being carried and Proves that the goods have been received” (Cma-cgm.com, 2018). 

The main area of the problem associated to the literature review will identify the reasons which are responsible for delay in releasing cargo at destination. The discussion of the research will further suggest on optimizing the “Bill of Lading” process to prevent delay in releasing cargo at destination. The latter part of the study has compared the approach of releasing bill of lading for CMA CGM with Maersk.

As per the “Bill of Lading” Policy of CMA CGM, the “bill of Lading” is sent with the merchant’s sole risk, responsibility and expenses involved.  The acceptance of the bill of lading involves, merchant agreeing to be abide by all “stipulation, exceptions, Terms and Conditions which is signed by the Merchant”. In addition to this, as per the policy of waybill merchant permits that in accepting this “Bill of Lading it is, or has the authority of, the Person owning or entitled to the possession of the Goods”. In case the merchant is a “Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier (NVOCC)”, the intended trends in the issue of the contracts of the carriage to the third party needs to cover the “Goods, or part of the Goods, transported by this Bill of Lading”. This has been further able to guarantee that the different types of the process for the “Bill of Lading” is seen to be imposed in terms of the conditions as it has been laid by the NVOCC. Some of the carrier’s obligation and the clause has found during the time of “loss or damage” has taken place at the “time of loading” of “Goods by the Carrier” or any of the “Underlying Carrier”, at the “Port of Loading” and the “time of discharge” by the transporter, or any “Underlying Carrier, at the Port of Discharge”. The “responsibility of the Carrier” shall be determined in agreement with the “Hague Rules” or any “national law incorporating” or making the “Hague Rules”, or any “amendments thereto, compulsorily applicable” to this “Bill of Lading” (Glass, 2014).

The different types of the carrier responsibility and clause were based on the factors such as port to port shipment, combined transport, agency functions and subrogation. It needs to be further seen that the notice of claim and time for suit is based on the “notice for loss or damage of the goods” and the evidences describing the exact “loss or damage” to the carriage at the “port of discharge” and delivery. In case of damage the delivery of the goods needs to be considered as per the specification provided in the “bill of lading”. In any instance when the “Carrier and its Sub-Contractors shall be discharged from all liability in respect of non-delivery, mis-delivery, delay, loss or damage unless suit were brought within one (1) year after delivery of the Goods or the date when the Goods should have been delivered” (Papageorgiou, 2017). The various types of the liability of provisions were based on the compensation, ad valorem liability and delay. The prejudice was seen to be applicable as per the limitation of the liability which agreed with the “provision set forth” in the sub clause and basis of the compensations which was intended to be limited to the value of the goods damaged or lost. The value of the goods was determined as per the “reference to the commercial invoice or the custom declaration”. In no situation the carrier was seen to be answerable for the “indirect damage”, consequential damage and decrease in profit (Ahmadi et al., 2017).

Optimization of Bill of Lading process to prevent delay on releasing cargo

The ad valorem liability was seen to be based on the various types of the clause where merchant agreed to the acknowledgement of the knowledge of the value of the Goods. If the compensation is determined to be higher than the “bill of lading” then ad valorem liability may not be requested unless there is a consent of the transporter.

It has been seen that in general the carrier does not undertake the responsibility for the arrival of “goods at the port of discharge” and at any time for meeting of the various types of the indirect “consequential loss or damage” caused due to delay. In case “foregoing carrier” was held responsible then the “carrier’s liability” is limited to the ocean freight and freight which was under this “Bill of Lading for the delayed Goods, exclusive of local charges and/or demurrage”. Under the methods of routes of “carriage the liberties set out in Clause 9 (1)” may be summoned by the Carrier for any reason whether or not associated with the “Carriage of the Goods”. This is also applicable when “loading or unloading other goods”, “bunkering, undergoing repairs, adjusting instruments, picking up or landing any Persons. However, this is not limited to persons involved with the operation or maintenance of the Vessel. The clause also assists the Vessels in situations where the carriage is likely to be affected with the “hindrance, risk, delay, difficulty or disadvantage of any kind” (Kantor, 2018).

As stated by Kurban and Kurban (2016), the delays in the shipment were caused by the various types of the factors which includes “vessel delays, logistic constraints and lack of proper coordination of the freights”. In general, the delays in the vessel were also seen to take place due to the factors such as port congestions, bad weather and changes in the service schedule. The lack of storage equipment of the delivery was considered to be critical for the service providers who needed to wait until appropriate space was attained. The changes in the service called for the need of timely delivery of goods by giving various efforts in reducing the longer times. These solutions were further seen to be based on the various types of the different considerations which were related to employing proper planning in advance and considering the expected delivery thereby calculating the most probable time for transit.  CMA CGM needs to plan for maintaining sufficient scope for emergency stocks to enable continuous production in case there is any delay in the raw material. It has been further seen to be important to check for expected weather conditions, holidays in different parts of the world and in making a better plan for evaluating the necessary factors. The important documents were recognised to be an integral part for solving any issues caused by delay as the routes and destinations are taken into consideration (Ho, 2016). 

Based on the previous literature to for bill of lading is identified as a legally binding document required for processing of the final shipment. However, there has been no evidence collected which shows that the company has provision for including additional charges such as accessorial in the present “bill of lading”. This should have been resolved by the company by issuing a separate freight bill along with the “bill of lading”. The study on the optimization have revealed that CMA CGM lacks provision for factors such as port congestions, bad weather and changes in the service schedule. There is no provision created in the “bill of lading” for such unforeseen conditions.

Gaps in the Previous Literature

As per the carrier’s Tariff of Maersk the main attention was given to the “free storage time”, container and “vehicle demurrage or detention”. The main form of the pertinent provisions was seen to be applicable with the Tariff which were accessible from the carrier upon request. In case there has been any form of inconsistency in the “bill of lading” and tariff, the amount prescribed in the “bill of lading” shall prevail. It has been further seen that the merchant warrants in approving to the “terms and conditions” which a person is entitled for as per the “bill of lading”. The “sub-contracting” of the carrier was seen to be entitled for the “sub contract on any terms whatsoever the whole or any part of the Carriage”. The carrier’s responsibility in terms of the ocean transport was seen with the undertaking the “carriage from the port of loading” and “port of discharge”. The “liability of the Carrier for loss of or damage to the Goods” was seen to be occurring from the time of receiving as per the carrier of custody of goods at the loading port and “Carrier tendering the Goods for delivery at the Port of Discharge shall be determined in accordance with Articles 1-8 of Hague Rules save as is otherwise provided in these Terms and Conditions”. In the mentioned articles “Hague Rules shall apply as a matter of contract”. It has been also depicted that the carrier does not have any liability for bearing the “loss or damage to the goods” and such acceptance of the carrier of “custody of the goods or after the carrier tendering” the cargo for delivery (Terms.maerskline.com, 2018).

In other occasions, the “Carrier's Responsibility Multimodal Transport” for the carriage was realized with his “own name to procure performance of the Carriage from the Place of Receipt or the Port of Loading, whichever was applicable, to the Port of Discharge or the Place of Delivery, whichever is applicable”. The carrier was further not seen to be having the no liability for the “loss or damage” to the goods because of the receiving of goods by the carrier of “custody of the Goods or after the Carrier tendering the Goods for delivery at the applicable points, and, the Carrier shall be liable for loss or damage occurring during the Carriage” (Cohen, Gurun & Malloy, 2017). The carrier is not seen to be undertaking the goods or any documents related to the availability of the “point or place at any stage during the Carriage or at the Port of Discharge or the Place of Delivery” the “Merchant or any market or use of the Goods and the Carrier” under no is seen to be “arising be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by delay”. On receiving the goods, the carrier for the carriage was not seen to be entitled to delay, suspend or stop which will otherwise interfere with the carrier’s performance in terms of the liberties conferred by the bill of lading (Sharify & Mokarrami, 2016).

Conclusion

In order to ensure that CMA CGM is consistent with the “bill of lading” procedure some research should look forward to document the impact of transportation management system and third-party logistics provider. This needs to be done in areas where the business can compensate for the unforeseen events which is causing delay on releasing cargo. In addition to the “bill of lading” the company would also issue a separate freight bill. Henceforth, the research should also look forward to the positive impacts on releasing a cargo after issuing of a separate freight bill. The research should also look forward to find the major routes which is causing the delay in dispatching of cargo. The significance of the study has been able to state on the reasons which are responsible for delay in releasing cargo due to Bill of Lading Process at CMA CGM. It has further discussed about optimizing the “Bill of Lading” process to prevent delay in releasing cargo at destination. Based on the assessment of the research gaps, we can depict that there has been no previously collected evidence which shows that the company has provision for including additional charges such as accessorial in the present “bill of lading”. This should have been resolved by the company by issuing a separate freight bill along with the “bill of lading”. The various implications of the present study have revealed that CMA CGM lacks provision for factors such as port congestions, bad weather and changes in the service schedule. Additionally, there is no provision created in the “bill of lading” for such unforeseen conditions.

References

Ahmadi, M. R. A., Elsan, M., & Noshadi, I. (2017). Comparative Study of Bill of Lading Function as Title Document. J. Pol. & L., 10, 188.

CMA CGM | Terms And Conditions . (2018). Cma-cgm.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.cma-cgm.com/products-services/shipping-guide/bl-clauses

Cma-cgm.com. (2018). Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.cma-cgm.com/static/eCommerce/Attachments/CMACGM-Terms-and-Conditions-2016-08.pdf

Cohen, L., Gurun, U. G., & Malloy, C. (2017). Resident networks and corporate connections: Evidence from World War II internment camps. The Journal of Finance, 72(1), 207-248.

Glass, D. A. (2014). All tied up? The potential impact of the Rotterdam rules on shippers' obligations to carriers under bill of lading clauses in respect of goods shipped.

History | CMA CGM Group. (2018). Cma-cgm.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://www.cma-cgm.com/the-group/about-us/history

Ho, T. (2016). Bills of lading in international trade and the actual, potential and perceived pitfalls associated therewith-an analysis from an international trade law perspective focusing particularly on the United Kingdom jurisdiction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Queensland).

Kantor, L. (2018). Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC v. Ocean World Lines, Inc. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 572 F. Supp. 2d 379 (Decided August 19, 2008). Admiralty Practicum, 2008(2), 4.

Kurban, B. and Kurban, B. (2016). Shipment delays and planning in advance to prevent them.. [online] More Than Shipping. Available at: https://www.morethanshipping.com/shipment-delays/ [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018].

Papageorgiou, C. O. (2017). The incorporation of a charterparty arbitration clause into a bill of lading.

Sharify, S. K., & Mokarrami, A. M. (2016). The Study of Regulations Governing Shipping Bill of Lading in Iran Laws and International Trade Documents. J. Pol. & L., 9, 44.

Terms for Carriage | Maerskline Terms. (2018). Terms.maerskline.com. Retrieved 18 April 2018, from https://terms.maerskline.com/carriage