目的港无人提货时实际托运人责任研究

Study on the Liability of the Actual Shipper in Case of No Pickup at the Destination Port

目的港无人提货时,承运人将面临集装箱超期使用费、处理费、码头堆存费、到付运费等巨大损失,承运人在遭受损失后有向托运人索赔的权利,然而FOB条件下的实际托运人是否能够成为相关费用的责任主体这一问题存在争议。本文从FOB条件下目的港无人提货时相关费用责任主体认定困境及其成因出发,然后从法理角度分析实际托运人在一般情况下免于承担《海商法》第69条支付运费的责任和第88条支付其他费用的责任;但存在例外情况,当实际托运人同时作为缔约托运人时、实际托运人持有提单并实际提取货物时、实际托运人被记名为提单托运人且缔约托运人在实践中难以确定时,实际托运人应当支付运费以及承运人追偿的其他合理费用。

When no one picks up the cargo at theport of destination, the carrier will face huge losses such as overduecontainer usage fee, handling fee, terminal storage fee and arrival freight,etc. The carrier has the right to claim from the shipper after sufferinglosses, however, the issue of whether the actual shipper under FOB conditionscan become the subject of responsibility for the relevant costs iscontroversial. This article starts from the dilemma of identifying the subjectof responsibility for the relevant costs when no one picks up the goods at theport of destination under FOB conditions and its causes, and then analyzes theactual shipper is generally exempted from the responsibility of paying freightunder Article 69 and the responsibility of paying other costs under Article 88of the Maritime Law from the perspective of jurisprudence;however, there areexceptions when the actual shipper is also the contracting shipper, when theactual shipper holds the bill of lading and actually picks up the goods, whenthe actual shipper is named as the bill of lading shipper and the contractingshipper is difficult to determine in practice, the actual shipper shall pay thefreight and other reasonable costs recovered by the carrier.