Plaintiff port operation principal and carrier Zhicheng concluded a monthly terminal fee agreement and a supplemental agreement, agreeing that Zhicheng would handle all operation according to business process specified by Plaintiff, and that Zhicheng would bear all responsibility for any accident or loss caused by the concealment, omission or misreporting of dangerous goods. Plaintiff also concluded a terminal loading and unloading agreement with the port operator Guangdong Sinotrans. After receiving the commission from the other party, Zhicheng handled the transportation of the container involved. Zhicheng had Plaintiff’s stamped notice of the return of the container to the port operator for the container operation list, the container operation list contained the entrusted unit for Plaintiff, the name of the goods for the hardware. Defendant port authority received a report that the customs spot check found that the actual goods in the container and the declaration of the name of the goods did not match, suspected fireworks. Defendant and customs, public security departments recognized that the container loaded with goods were actually fireworks. Defendant investigated and issued Notice of Violation, Plaintiff applied for a hearing, statement of defense facts and reasons. Defendant recognized that when Plaintiff was entrusted with port operations, the general goods hardware entrusted to Plaintiff was confirmed to be dangerous goods fireworks, which were highly dangerous and in large quantities, violating the provisions of the Provisions on the Safe Management of Dangerous Goods in Ports, and that Plaintiff should be given an administrative penalty of a fine of 200,000 yuan, and Decision on Administrative Penalties was delivered to Plaintiff on the spot. Plaintiff was not convinced, filed an action before the court. The court held that (1) Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff was the operation principal of the Provisions on the Safe Management of Dangerous Goods in Ports had a factual basis. Because Plaintiff and the port operator to enter into a terminal loading and unloading agreement, the container was stamped with Plaintiff’s signature for the return of the container notice for port operations entrustment, Plaintiff should be regarded as the port operations principal. (2) Plaintiff did carry out the illegal behavior should be punished. Because Plaintiff as the principal of the operation, should verify operation of the goods entrusted according to the provisions, and truthfully provide the relevant information on the goods to the port operator, in order to take appropriate operational measures. However, it did not verify the name of the goods and provide goods in the case of “hardware” general goods name to the port operator, with subjective fault of indulgence, ultimately leading to dangerous goods to the name of the general goods to the port operator, resulting in a major port security risks. (3) Therefore, based on that the administrative penalty decision made by Defendant had correct application of law and regulations and had statutory procedures, Plaintiff should pay the corresponding fine.

Guangzhou Rungang Logistics Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Port Authority

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Martin Davies,
Jiang Lin

摘要

Plaintiff port operation principal and carrier Zhicheng concluded a monthly terminal fee agreement and a supplemental agreement, agreeing that Zhicheng would handle all operation according to business process specified by Plaintiff, and that Zhicheng would bear all responsibility for any accident or loss caused by the concealment, omission or misreporting of dangerous goods. Plaintiff also concluded a terminal loading and unloading agreement with the port operator Guangdong Sinotrans. After receiving the commission from the other party, Zhicheng handled the transportation of the container involved. Zhicheng had Plaintiff’s stamped notice of the return of the container to the port operator for the container operation list, the container operation list contained the entrusted unit for Plaintiff, the name of the goods for the hardware. Defendant port authority received a report that the customs spot check found that the actual goods in the container and the declaration of the name of the goods did not match, suspected fireworks. Defendant and customs, public security departments recognized that the container loaded with goods were actually fireworks. Defendant investigated and issued Notice of Violation, Plaintiff applied for a hearing, statement of defense facts and reasons. Defendant recognized that when Plaintiff was entrusted with port operations, the general goods hardware entrusted to Plaintiff was confirmed to be dangerous goods fireworks, which were highly dangerous and in large quantities, violating the provisions of the Provisions on the Safe Management of Dangerous Goods in Ports, and that Plaintiff should be given an administrative penalty of a fine of 200,000 yuan, and Decision on Administrative Penalties was delivered to Plaintiff on the spot. Plaintiff was not convinced, filed an action before the court. The court held that (1) Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff was the operation principal of the Provisions on the Safe Management of Dangerous Goods in Ports had a factual basis. Because Plaintiff and the port operator to enter into a terminal loading and unloading agreement, the container was stamped with Plaintiff’s signature for the return of the container notice for port operations entrustment, Plaintiff should be regarded as the port operations principal. (2) Plaintiff did carry out the illegal behavior should be punished. Because Plaintiff as the principal of the operation, should verify operation of the goods entrusted according to the provisions, and truthfully provide the relevant information on the goods to the port operator, in order to take appropriate operational measures. However, it did not verify the name of the goods and provide goods in the case of “hardware” general goods name to the port operator, with subjective fault of indulgence, ultimately leading to dangerous goods to the name of the general goods to the port operator, resulting in a major port security risks. (3) Therefore, based on that the administrative penalty decision made by Defendant had correct application of law and regulations and had statutory procedures, Plaintiff should pay the corresponding fine.