|
The C Group has the
main heading of ‘Main Carriage Paid’, meaning that the main carriage is paid by the seller. It is a
constant within the Incoterms ® rule system that a place must be named when
the term is formalised within the contract of supply between buyer and
seller. The place named within the C term will always be a place in the
country of destination, hence CIF Bangkok, CPT Sydney and so on. This is
because the seller has the responsibility for paying the carriage to the
point named. As we will see under ‘key points and responsibilities’ there are
common confusions and misconceptions related particularly to the C group of
terms which prompted the quote from Professor Ramberg referred to at the
beginning of this article.
Common pitfalls
There are 2 groups
of C terms . One is intended for use only when the goods are carried by sea
(CFR and CIF). The other group (CPT and CIP) can be used for any mode of
transport, including sea and multimodal transport. The sea freight terms have
the ships rail as a critical point whereas the multimodal terms have delivery
attached to putting the goods into the first carrier’s hands. A common
pitfall is in not understanding the significant difference between the 2
groups.
Without doubt,
however, the C group causes considerable confusion in that unlike the other
groups E, F,and D there are two critical points instead of one contained
within the term. Risk passes from seller to the buyer in the country of
departure but freight is paid and arranged by the seller to a point named in
the country of destination. The fact that only one place is named in
expressing the term, sellers and buyers fall into the trap of regarding that
as the only significant point.
As if these traps
were not enough there is an additional pitfall in connection with insurance,
two of the four C terms (CIF CIP) require the seller to take out insurance in
the name of the buyer even though risk passes from seller to buyer in the
country of departure.
Key points and
responsibilities under C group terms
1. The seller must
contract for carriage to the destination specified in the term agreed in the
contract of supply. This applies in each of the 4 group C terms. It is
important, however, for the seller to note that two of the terms are intended
for sea freight shipment only, these are CIF and CFR. With the sea freight
terms the ship’s rail plays a key part as the point at which risk passes from
seller to buyer.
Real life example:
Company H in the UK
concluded an order for a New Zealand customer with the Incoterms ® rule CIF
Auckland included in the written contract document. When despatch was
achieved the goods were sent air freight. Because no ship’s rail was crossed
risk effectively did not transfer to the buyer. No damage occurred in transit
but the buyer hastened to point out to the seller a lack of compliance in the
procedure which could have led to dispute.
2 . Risk passes from seller to buyer in the
country of departure either when the goods are in the hands of the first
carrier (CPT and CIP) or have crossed the ships rail (CIF CFR) . Effectively
the seller has no risk after these points BUT in two of the terms CIF and CIP
the seller has the obligation under the term to take out insurance cover in
the name of the buyer, this cover is set out in the Incoterms ® rules
published by the ICC, it limits the sellers obligation to taking out minimum
cover of the Institute of London Underwriters Cargo Clauses or similar.
Further cover must be negotiated by the buyer and seller to cover risks
additional to the minimum referred to.
Jan Ramberg has the
opinion that this minimum cover comes about because of the sale of goods in
transit (as in commodity trading) how, though, he asks, is the seller to know
at the outset what the insurance requirements of the buyer are? He cannot.
Therefore if the buyer requires additional cover it should make it
known at the outset.
Real life
example: UK buyer agreed the term CIF
Felixstowe (Incoterms ® 2010) but realised that they had not understood the
extent (or lack of) of insurance cover until the goods arrived from Russia in
a damaged state due to ‘civil commotion’ which was not covered by the buyers
insurance requirement. It then came to light that the buyer had an insurance policy
for goods in transit which covered the cost, the question they were then
forced to ask themselves was “why are
buying under CIF when we already are covering the risk with our own insurance
?’
Real Life
example: UK seller quoted CFR and CIF
on various export quotations but did not always adhere to the requirement to
ship by sea freight, this meant that they were not always able to provide a
bill of lading to the buyer. The buyer in one case was not impressed by the
sellers’ lack of competence or understanding which turned out to be
detrimental to the relationship.
Essential
differences between the 4 C terms
The broad
characteristics of each of the 4 groups contained within the new (2010) set of Incoterms ® rules apply to
the terms contained within the particular group, e.g. under the C group terms
the main carriage costs must be paid by the seller and risk will pass in the
country of departure these are constants.
The differences in
the 4 terms are significant. Two apply to sea freight and two are multimodal.
Two have obligations on the seller to insure the goods. One by one we look at
the differences.
CFR (Cost &
Freight)
Main
responsibilities of the seller are:
• to contract for carriage
• to deliver the goods on board the vessel
with the main carriage paid to the named point in the country of destination
• provide a clean transport document (bill
of lading or sea waybill)
• arrange export clearance
• pay unloading costs if for their account
under the contract of carriage
Remember that, as
with FOB, the ship’s rail is no longer the point at which risk passes from
seller to buyer as under the 2010 set this has changed to loaded at port of
export but this still means that only conventional sea freight should be used
under this term.
CIF (Cost, Insurance
and Freight )
Main
responsibilities of the seller are:
• To contract for carriage and insurance
(as defined by the ICC rules)
• Deliver the goods on board
• Provide a clean transport document and a
cargo insurance policy or certificate
• arrange export clearance
• pay unloading costs if required under the
contract of carriage
The safe loading on
the ship is the key point where risk passes so conventional sea freight is
the required mode of transport.
CPT (Carriage paid
to … named place of destination)
Main
responsibilities of the seller are:
• To contract for carriage
• Deliver the goods to the (first) carrier
• Provide a usual and ‘clean’ transport
document
• Arrange export clearance
• Pay loading costs
• Pay unloading costs if required under the
contract of carriage
This term applies
to any mode of transport. Risk passes when the goods are in the hands of the
first carrier
CIP (Carriage & Insurance paid to … named
place of destination )
Main
responsibilities of the seller are:
• To contract for Carriage & Insurance
• Deliver the goods to the (first) carrier
• Provide a clean and usual transport
document and certificate of insurance (or policy)
• Arrange export clearance
• Pay loading costs
• Pay unloading costs if required under the
contract of carriage
This term applies
to any mode of transport.
|
Showing posts with label cif. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cif. Show all posts
Friday, 19 April 2013
Incoterms 2010 – Group C Terms – are they useful?
Labels:
CFR,
cif,
CIP,
CPT,
customs duties,
customs procedures,
Export procedures,
exports,
Exworks,
fca,
fob,
imports,
Incoterms,
Incoterms 2010,
international trade,
Tariff,
world trade
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Are Incoterms Perfect?
Also see our Incoterms-2010 blog for debates just on Incoterms 2010.
It is interesting to consider the point that the Incoterms ® Rules are not intrinsically perfect despite the many revisions that have taken place since 1936. They are certainly a brave and robust attempt to provide an international trade language to define where delivery takes place legally in supply contracts. That is not to say that in the wide and complicated world of international trade there are not some inconsistencies and disagreements as to the interpretation of some elements of individual terms.
The ICC publication ‘The Incoterms 2000 Forum of Experts’ (Publication No. 617) is a transcript of the international forum held in Paris in September 1999 to launch the latest version. It illuminated some of the difficulties of interpretation but in the overview to the publication it stresses that Rules are the perfect illustration of a global standard, elaborated by business to respond to the need of business to provide flexible rules for governing its activity. We hope to receive a similar overview to the new 2010 set.
Terms that businesses appear to struggle with when trying to put them into practical use are ExWorks, FCA, the 4 remaining sea freight terms (FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF)and Group C in general. Why isn't Exworks suitable for international trade? If it isn't suitable why didn't the ICC take it out of the new Incoterms 2010 set? Why must a seller not only be responsible for export customs clearance but also have to pay for it under FCA Seller's Premises? And, how in practice, does a seller pay for export customs clearance when using air express operators such as UPS, TNT, DHL and Fedex who do not split down the costs? Why can't I have goods moving in a sea freight container delivered on board the ship under FOB - why must it be FCA port of departure? Moving away from FOB increases the costs and risks of the buyer?
We could go on. It appears to some that in the new set of Incoterms the ICC are hoping to shape the way international trade uses delivery terms rather than following what the international trading companies actually do. Incoterms Training is essentials and it must be done for the business as a whole not just a couple of logistics people. Incoterms in sales contracts and the use of Incoterms in purchasing departments should be given a higher profile than it appears to have in the majority of businesses.
It is interesting to consider the point that the Incoterms ® Rules are not intrinsically perfect despite the many revisions that have taken place since 1936. They are certainly a brave and robust attempt to provide an international trade language to define where delivery takes place legally in supply contracts. That is not to say that in the wide and complicated world of international trade there are not some inconsistencies and disagreements as to the interpretation of some elements of individual terms.
The ICC publication ‘The Incoterms 2000 Forum of Experts’ (Publication No. 617) is a transcript of the international forum held in Paris in September 1999 to launch the latest version. It illuminated some of the difficulties of interpretation but in the overview to the publication it stresses that Rules are the perfect illustration of a global standard, elaborated by business to respond to the need of business to provide flexible rules for governing its activity. We hope to receive a similar overview to the new 2010 set.
Terms that businesses appear to struggle with when trying to put them into practical use are ExWorks, FCA, the 4 remaining sea freight terms (FAS, FOB, CFR, CIF)and Group C in general. Why isn't Exworks suitable for international trade? If it isn't suitable why didn't the ICC take it out of the new Incoterms 2010 set? Why must a seller not only be responsible for export customs clearance but also have to pay for it under FCA Seller's Premises? And, how in practice, does a seller pay for export customs clearance when using air express operators such as UPS, TNT, DHL and Fedex who do not split down the costs? Why can't I have goods moving in a sea freight container delivered on board the ship under FOB - why must it be FCA port of departure? Moving away from FOB increases the costs and risks of the buyer?
We could go on. It appears to some that in the new set of Incoterms the ICC are hoping to shape the way international trade uses delivery terms rather than following what the international trading companies actually do. Incoterms Training is essentials and it must be done for the business as a whole not just a couple of logistics people. Incoterms in sales contracts and the use of Incoterms in purchasing departments should be given a higher profile than it appears to have in the majority of businesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)