The Emphasis Law Office’s Post

📣 **Important Legal Precedent Set in Shipping Agency Agreements** An SRO issued in 2014 by the Licensing Authority of the National Board of Revenue (NBR) mandated amongst others that foreign Main Line Operators (MLOs) represented by local shipping agents could only terminate their agency agreements once accounts are settled. This measure was taken at the instance of the local shipping agents purportedly to ensure proper inward remittance of agency fees and other charges accrued on behalf of the MLOs at the office of different statutory regulatory authority through the outgoing local agents. However, this regulation was being exploited by some local agents to unjustly delay their lawfully executed termination procedures by their foreign principals, hindering the foreign principals' ability to exit agreements. In response to this misuse, our Head of Chambers, Mr. Tanjib Alam, Barrister and Senior Advocate, along with Partner Mr. M. Saquib Uzzaman, Barrister and Advocate of the Supreme Court, took a stand on behalf of COSCO Container Lines Company Ltd. by challenged the SRO through a judicial review petition before the Hon'ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. The case travelled all the way up to the Hon'ble Appellate Division, which affirmed that while agency agreements are inherently terminable, they must be terminated only after accounts are settled. The Apex Court further mandated that the accounts be settled within 2 months through mediations out of court by the private trade body which acts as a collective bargaining agent of all local agents. This landmark decision raises a crucial point: **Will this precedent now compel local agents to facilitate timely account settlements to honor their obligations? Is a private Trade body being a collective bargaining agent of all local agents, in a position to objectively deal all grievances be it from local agents or their foreign principal?** The ruling emphasizes that while the termination of agency agreements remains a right, it must be executed in a fair and timely manner, with account settlements concluded within a reasonable period, which is also voluntarily agreed by the parties through the agreement. This case underscores the evolving landscape of regulatory compliance and the importance of fair practices in international trade. 💼⚖️ #LegalUpdates #InternationalTrade #AgencyAgreements #RegulatoryCompliance #LegalPrecedents

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, Rotterdam Rules Adopted by the General Assembly on 11 December 2008, the Convention establishes a uniform and modern legal regime governing the rights and obligations of shippers, carriers and consignees under a contract for door-to-door carriage that includes an international sea leg. The Convention builds upon, and provides a modern alternative to, earlier conventions relating to the international carriage of goods by sea, in particular, the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading (Brussels, 25 August 1924) ("the Hague Rules"), and its Protocols ("the Hague-Visby Rules"), and the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg, 31 March 1978) ("the Hamburg Rules"). The Rotterdam Rules provide a legal framework that takes into account the many technological and commercial developments that have occurred in maritime transport since the adoption of those earlier conventions, including the growth of containerization, the desire for door-to-door carriage under a single contract, and the development of electronic transport documents. The Convention provides shippers and carriers with a binding and balanced universal regime to support the operation of maritime contracts of carriage that may involve other modes of transport. https://lnkd.in/eDfk4jAa Article 89 Denunciation of other conventions 1. A State that ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Convention and is a party to the International Convention for the Unification of certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading signed at Brussels on 25 August 1924, to the Protocol to amend the International Convention for the Unification of certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels on 23 February 1968, or to the Protocol to amend the International Convention for the Unification of certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading as Modified by the Amending Protocol of 23 February 1968, signed at Brussels on 21 December 1979, shall at the same time denounce that Convention and the protocol or protocols thereto to which it is a party by notifying the Government of Belgium to that effect, with a declaration that the denunciation is to take effect as from the date when this Convention enters into force in respect of that State. 2. A State that ratifies, accepts, approves or accedes to this Convention and is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea concluded at Hamburg on 31 March 1978 shall at the same time denounce that Convention by notifying the Secretary-General of the United Nations to that effect, with a declaration that the denunciation is to take effect as from the date when this Convention enters into force in respect of that State. Article 90 Reservations No reservation is permitted to this Convention

Are the Rotterdam Rules another nail in the coffin? “The fact that the Malaysian government has chosen to implement the Hague-Visby Rules into domestic law, may indicate that the international maritime community has given up on the Rotterdam Rules. This may therefore be another nail in the coffin for this convention. The Rotterdam Rules is an international convention which introduces new and modernized international rules regarding carriage of goods by sea, which were intended to solve many legal issues which the industry has dealt with over the years.” “The announcement of the Rotterdam Rules in December 2008 was met with optimistic signs, as this would mean an actual replacement of the Hague-Visby Rules, an international convention that has been in force with few amendments since 1924. However, more than ten years later, it looks like we are all concluding that this has been yet another failed attempt of replacing the Hague-Visby rules. In order for the Rotterdam Rules to come into effect, at least twenty countries need to ratify the convention.” “The Hague Visby rules have been under criticism from cargo interests for decades, as the rules have been seen as unbalanced and too favorable for the carrier. The biggest points for criticism have always been the exemption from liability for faults in the navigation of the vessel and the relative low limitation amounts. Failed attempts of replacing the Hague Visby rules have been made in the past, e.g. the the Hamburg Rules, a convention which came into force in 1992, fourteen years after its announcement. However, the Hamburg Rules have not been ratified by any states representing any large shipping- or cargo interests.” https://lnkd.in/ewrNWbUH

🚢 Jurisdiction of French courts in shipping disputes: what you need to know! 🇫🇷 The French Supreme Court has recently confirmed that forum selection clauses in bills of lading, particularly those outside the EU, might not always hold up in French courts. This decision could have a major impact on shipping contracts involving French parties, especially post-Brexit. If your bill of lading refers to a non-EU court, it’s worth reviewing to avoid surprises. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eN6aZmkK 💡 Want to learn more about this ruling and its implications? Contact our Claims team at claims@nnpc.nl. #ShippingLaw #Logistics #FrenchLaw #InternationalTrade #LegalInsights

🔔 Bills of lading and applicable law 💬 There are different types of Bills of lading used in international carriage of goods by sea. We basically have the i) order bill, ii) bearer bill and iii) straight bill. The order bill and bearer bill are a document of title and a straight bill is a document of title insofar it states that delivery by the carrier shall be made against presentation of the original bill against the carrier. This contrary to a mere sea waybill which is not a document of title but merely serves a contract of carriage and as evidence of receipt of the goods. The order bill and bearer bill are both negotiable documents, basically meaning that these bills can be transferred from a person with title to a person without title. Such transfer of bills (and thus the goods) is normally done during carriage. The Rome I Regulation (former “EVO” Convention) dealing with international applicable law to contractual obligations, clearly prescribes in Preamble (9) that “other negotiable instruments should also cover bills of lading to the extent that the obligations under the bill of lading arise out of its negotiable character.” 👉 Per art 1 paragraph 2 sub (d) of the Rome I Regulation it is basically prescribed that order and bearer bills, as being negotiable documents, are not covered under the Rome I. As such the respective national IPL applies. Pursuant to Dutch IPL, art. 10:162 DCC applies, basically designating the applicable law of the port of discharge ("POD") as mentioned in the bill. Pursuant to inter alia Dutch law the straight bill is considered to be a non-negotiable document, since upon issuing the bill the consignee is already named therein and it therefore not possible in a later stage to transfer from a person with title to a person without title, i.e. to a third party not mentioned in the straight bill. 👉 Given the scope provisions of the Rome I, the straight bill of lading is covered by the Rome I, barring the obvious choice of law clause which is normally inserted in a bill (see art. 3 Rome I). If not any choice of law clause is made, art 5 Rome I determines which law is applicable under the straight bill of lading. By the way, (again barring a choice of law clause) the Rome I also applies on the Sea waybill. #logistics #maritime #claims #insurance #transport #shipping #trade #lawandlegislation

Understanding India's Maritime Laws: A Comprehensive Guide to Anchoring Legal Clarity

Understanding India's Maritime Laws: A Comprehensive Guide to Anchoring Legal Clarity

TDM Law Journal Special Issue on #Maritime #Law #Arbitration: Procedural and Substantive Issues - free excerpt https://lnkd.in/gCPkA58

The "Always Speaking" Principle Of Statutory Interpretation UK Supreme Court in News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2023] UK 7, [2024] AC 89, said: "... Within that modern approach, it is also a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that, in general, a provision is always speaking: ... 29. What is meant by the always speaking principle is that, as a general rule, a statute should be interpreted taking into account changes that have occurred since the statute was enacted. Those changes may include, for example, technological developments, changes in scientific understanding, changes in social attitudes and changes in the law. Very importantly it does not matter that those changes could not have been reasonably contemplated or foreseen at the time that the provision was enacted. Exceptionally, the always speaking principle will not be applied where it is clear, from the words used in the light of their context and purpose, that the provision is tied to an historic or frozen interpretation. A possible example (referred to by Lord Steyn in R v Ireland at p 158) is The Longford (1889) 14 PD 34 where the word "action" in a statute was held not to be apt to cover an Admiralty action in rem: at the time the statute was passed, the Admiralty Court "was not one of His Majesty's Courts of Law" (p 38). 30. The great merit of the always speaking principle is that it operates to prevent statutes becoming outdated. It would be unrealistic for Parliament to try to keep most statutes up to date by continually passing amendments to cope with subsequent change. ..." Cited recently in Dr Saeed Shehabi V. The Kingdom Of Bahrain, [2024] EWCA Civ 1158 #law

Statements Recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act are Admissible before Court of Law: CESTAT #customsact #law #cestat #taxscan #taxnews Read More: https://lnkd.in/gpS8CrPt