乐清外贸公司与长荣航运公司海上货物运输合同争议案-法搜-中国法律信息搜索网

　　6、11月12日买方电子邮件称：“in Customs. I haven’t cleared custom yet, because I made a reclamation to the shipping company because there was 108 CTNS less on the container.”（证据11）; 11月14日买方说：“we can check the container with copy documents but we can’t clear custom without originals.”（证据12）; 12月12日买方电子邮件称：“we can open the containers with a GUARANTEE of an insurance company that we are going to give the original Bill of lading in the future.” “there weren’t any sign that the seal was touched before”（证据13）。
　　7、提单背面条款第25条（5）规定：“Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary contained within this Bill of Lading, where in accordance with local legislation all import cargo is discharged into the custody of the port authority or customs and such agencies in turn are solely responsible for the correct release of the cargo to the rightful consignee upon presentation of the pertinent documentation and payment of relevant customs duties , taxes, dues and any other charges. Therein such countries neither upon presentation of the pertinent documentation and payment of relevant customs duties, taxes , dues and any other charges. Then in such countries neither the Carrier nor its agents will be responsible or liable in the event of incorrect release of the cargo after its delivery to the port authority or customs by the Carrier（证据14）。
　　二、争议问题
　　1、短卸货物应由谁承担责任？原告应当向谁主张权利？
　　2、无单放货承运人是否应承担赔偿责任？
　　3、本案适用法律?管辖法院?
　　三、评析
　　（一）承运人应对货物短卸承担赔偿责任。
　　虽然本案货物运抵目的港经检验发现短卸108箱，第二批货物又发现短卸104箱（第二票提单未见，提单如何批注不明），且据称卸货时原铅封完好无损，没有任何证据显示该原始铅封曾被破坏过，提单批注有“托运人装载和计数556箱”。被告辩称　“it was the shipper who performed stuffing and packing of the cargoes,the carrier had never been involved in and unknown to the contents whereof. Pursuandt to 10 Clause, the carrier are not in a position to entertain your claim and hereby repudiate the liability entirely.”然而该内容数量不知条款不完整，因而并不能使承运人得以免责。因为其仅仅注明：“shipper’s load and count”而未注明 “sealed”.据此，承运人完全有权也有机会复验箱内数量，至于承运人事实上是否行使了该项权利无关紧要。无论承运人是否复点过数量，均不能免除其责任。本案集装箱是由谁铅封的，是本案责任承担的关健。从提单本身无法判断由谁封签，至少从表面证据上看，不能认定是托运人铅封，那么理当认定是由承运人封铅。