UBL Transportation SC

  • 1.  Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-09-2007 01:09
    Thanks for your comments.  I will review them over the next few days.
    
    In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we mean 
    by shipment and consignment.  This has been almost impossible to 
    clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of 
    definition  I personally believe that the distinction between these two 
    is grey and ambiguous in the industry.  The correct term depends on the 
    context in which it is used.
    
    Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We took 
    Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods items 
    (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via 
    one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport contract 
    document".  And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one or 
    more line items (available to be) transported together from the seller 
    i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A 
    shipment can be transported in different consignments"
    
    However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a contractual 
    arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in one 
    collection of goods items.  So we have viewed the Shipment as the 
    logistical collection of goods items.  Just as there are cases where a 
    Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases where 
    a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into 
    different Shipments  (for economics or ease of logistics).  The TBG3 
    high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
    
    Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment can 
    transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A 
    Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
    
    In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the separation 
    is academic.
    
    However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to One 
    Shipment - Many Consignments.  In which case it does matter that we get 
    the separation correct.  This is a further argument for adopting the 
    simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions. 
    
    Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the logistical 
    details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and 
    Orders).  It means any properties that may affect or vary with the 
    actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under the 
    Shipment.  Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements only 
    (what is required).
    
    Does that help?
    
    
    
    
    Flemming Møller Hansen wrote:
    > Hi Tim!
    >
    > I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
    >
    > The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which from the
    > danish requirements/proposals point of view
    > belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
    > There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you can get
    > my answer:
    >
    > Notice:
    > We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
    > consignments.
    > The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
    > consignments.
    >
    > May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment) before we
    > continue?
    >
    > Who have the correct definitions available?
    >
    > (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
    >
    > Best regards/
    > Med venlig hilsen
    > PROGRATOR
    >
    > Flemming Møller Hansen
    > eBusiness Consultant
    > ====================================================
    > EDI & Business Integration
    >
    > MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød
    > Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
    > Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
    >
    > http://www.progrator.dk
    > ====================================================
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > No virus found in this incoming message.
    > Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date: 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
    >   
    
    -- 
    regards
    tim mcgrath
    phone: +618 93352228  
    postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    
    


  • 2.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-09-2007 17:03
    Hello TSC,
    
    I agree completely with the "One Shipment - Many Consignments" requirement.
    
    Commonly a "Shipment" is required by an "Exporter" according an "Incoterm",
    this reason the Exporter starts a specific "shipment" contract with a
    "Customs Forwarder" and 1/more "transport" contract with 1/more transport
    carriers.
    The relationship between these actors can be different case by case but it
    is normal that a complete shipment could need many consignment (transports
    also intermodal).
    
    The "Booking" identifier usually is strictly connected with a shipment
    (expecially by air or sea) but again a very long shipment could make use
    of different carriers.
    
    From the Customs side (as found in the SAD/DAU customs declaration) there
    should be the case goods will travel across many countries, with different
    customs offices, different customs forwarders, different carriers.
    
    Then of course there is the splitted consignment case due to many reasons:
    - Availability of goods
    - Same shipment, different goods, same buyer.... but different receivers
    (g.e. The main office of a shipping "sea" company buyes some spare parts
    and need those parts are splitted and delivered to different
    vessels/ports)
    
    The result is always the same, the need of many transport contract
    controlled by the same exporter often for a whole shipment with a shipment
    organization made by a customs forwarder or more.
    
    Really complex,
    if I wrong something please revert.
    
    Hope these samples are a good info.
    
    Best regards
    
    UBL ITLSC
    co-chair
    Roberto Cisternino
    
    
    > Thanks for your comments.  I will review them over the next few days.
    >
    > In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we mean
    > by shipment and consignment.  This has been almost impossible to
    > clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of
    > definition  I personally believe that the distinction between these two
    > is grey and ambiguous in the industry.  The correct term depends on the
    > context in which it is used.
    >
    > Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We took
    > Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods items
    > (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via
    > one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport contract
    > document".  And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one or
    > more line items (available to be) transported together from the seller
    > i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A
    > shipment can be transported in different consignments"
    >
    > However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a contractual
    > arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in one
    > collection of goods items.  So we have viewed the Shipment as the
    > logistical collection of goods items.  Just as there are cases where a
    > Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases where
    > a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into
    > different Shipments  (for economics or ease of logistics).  The TBG3
    > high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
    >
    > Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment can
    > transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A
    > Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
    >
    > In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the separation
    > is academic.
    >
    > However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to One
    > Shipment - Many Consignments.  In which case it does matter that we get
    > the separation correct.  This is a further argument for adopting the
    > simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions.
    >
    > Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the logistical
    > details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and
    > Orders).  It means any properties that may affect or vary with the
    > actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under the
    > Shipment.  Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements only
    > (what is required).
    >
    > Does that help?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Flemming Møller Hansen wrote:
    >> Hi Tim!
    >>
    >> I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
    >>
    >> The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which from
    >> the
    >> danish requirements/proposals point of view
    >> belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
    >> There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you can
    >> get
    >> my answer:
    >>
    >> Notice:
    >> We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
    >> consignments.
    >> The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
    >> consignments.
    >>
    >> May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment) before
    >> we
    >> continue?
    >>
    >> Who have the correct definitions available?
    >>
    >> (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
    >>
    >> Best regards/
    >> Med venlig hilsen
    >> PROGRATOR
    >>
    >> Flemming Møller Hansen
    >> eBusiness Consultant
    >> ====================================================
    >> EDI & Business Integration
    >>
    >> MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød
    >> Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
    >> Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
    >>
    >> http://www.progrator.dk
    >> ====================================================
    >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    >> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date:
    >> 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
    >>
    >
    > --
    > regards
    > tim mcgrath
    > phone: +618 93352228
    > postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    > web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >
    >
    
    
    Roberto Cisternino
    
    


  • 3.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-10-2007 06:28
    Thanks again roberto, your input is adding weight to Flemming's 
    interpretation. The more we discuss this, the more I am persuaded that 
    the idea of "Consignment as Contractual information" is ambiguous.
    
    Would it be more appropriate to think of...
    Shipment as the commercial/trade level arrangements seen by the 
    Importer/Exporter (Customer/Supplier). 
    and make our definition: "An identifiable collection of one or more 
    goods items (available to be) transported from the original shipper, to 
    the ultimate recipient. Note: A shipment can be transported in different 
    consignments."
    
    Consignment as the logistical/transport level arrangements as seen by 
    the Carriers, Forwarders, etc.
    and make the definition: "A separately identifiable collection of goods 
    items (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee 
    via one or more modes of transport. Note: A consignment can composed of 
    more thn one shipment."
    
    Any comments?
    
    roberto@javest.com wrote:
    > Hello TSC,
    >
    > I agree completely with the "One Shipment - Many Consignments" requirement.
    >
    > Commonly a "Shipment" is required by an "Exporter" according an "Incoterm",
    > this reason the Exporter starts a specific "shipment" contract with a
    > "Customs Forwarder" and 1/more "transport" contract with 1/more transport
    > carriers.
    > The relationship between these actors can be different case by case but it
    > is normal that a complete shipment could need many consignment (transports
    > also intermodal).
    >
    > The "Booking" identifier usually is strictly connected with a shipment
    > (expecially by air or sea) but again a very long shipment could make use
    > of different carriers.
    >
    > >From the Customs side (as found in the SAD/DAU customs declaration) there
    > should be the case goods will travel across many countries, with different
    > customs offices, different customs forwarders, different carriers.
    >
    > Then of course there is the splitted consignment case due to many reasons:
    > - Availability of goods
    > - Same shipment, different goods, same buyer.... but different receivers
    > (g.e. The main office of a shipping "sea" company buyes some spare parts
    > and need those parts are splitted and delivered to different
    > vessels/ports)
    >
    > The result is always the same, the need of many transport contract
    > controlled by the same exporter often for a whole shipment with a shipment
    > organization made by a customs forwarder or more.
    >
    > Really complex,
    > if I wrong something please revert.
    >
    > Hope these samples are a good info.
    >
    > Best regards
    >
    > UBL ITLSC
    > co-chair
    > Roberto Cisternino
    >
    >
    >   
    >> Thanks for your comments.  I will review them over the next few days.
    >>
    >> In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we mean
    >> by shipment and consignment.  This has been almost impossible to
    >> clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of
    >> definition  I personally believe that the distinction between these two
    >> is grey and ambiguous in the industry.  The correct term depends on the
    >> context in which it is used.
    >>
    >> Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We took
    >> Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods items
    >> (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via
    >> one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport contract
    >> document".  And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one or
    >> more line items (available to be) transported together from the seller
    >> i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A
    >> shipment can be transported in different consignments"
    >>
    >> However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a contractual
    >> arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in one
    >> collection of goods items.  So we have viewed the Shipment as the
    >> logistical collection of goods items.  Just as there are cases where a
    >> Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases where
    >> a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into
    >> different Shipments  (for economics or ease of logistics).  The TBG3
    >> high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
    >>
    >> Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment can
    >> transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A
    >> Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
    >>
    >> In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the separation
    >> is academic.
    >>
    >> However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to One
    >> Shipment - Many Consignments.  In which case it does matter that we get
    >> the separation correct.  This is a further argument for adopting the
    >> simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions.
    >>
    >> Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the logistical
    >> details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and
    >> Orders).  It means any properties that may affect or vary with the
    >> actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under the
    >> Shipment.  Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements only
    >> (what is required).
    >>
    >> Does that help?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Flemming Møller Hansen wrote:
    >>     
    >>> Hi Tim!
    >>>
    >>> I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
    >>>
    >>> The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which from
    >>> the
    >>> danish requirements/proposals point of view
    >>> belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
    >>> There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you can
    >>> get
    >>> my answer:
    >>>
    >>> Notice:
    >>> We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
    >>> consignments.
    >>> The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
    >>> consignments.
    >>>
    >>> May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment) before
    >>> we
    >>> continue?
    >>>
    >>> Who have the correct definitions available?
    >>>
    >>> (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
    >>>
    >>> Best regards/
    >>> Med venlig hilsen
    >>> PROGRATOR
    >>>
    >>> Flemming Møller Hansen
    >>> eBusiness Consultant
    >>> ====================================================
    >>> EDI & Business Integration
    >>>
    >>> MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød
    >>> Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
    >>> Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
    >>>
    >>> http://www.progrator.dk
    >>> ====================================================
    >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>
    >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    >>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date:
    >>> 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
    >>>
    >>>       
    >> --
    >> regards
    >> tim mcgrath
    >> phone: +618 93352228
    >> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>
    >>
    >>     
    >
    >
    > Roberto Cisternino
    >
    >
    >   
    
    -- 
    regards
    tim mcgrath
    phone: +618 93352228  
    postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    
    


  • 4.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-10-2007 17:44
    Hello,
    in both cases there is a different contract as stated before:
    
    1) Exporter with Customs Forwarder to have a complete support for
    documentation, customs, transport organization.
    NOTE: This contract is just a service organization contract - the customs
    forwarder has no responsabilities for the goods at all.
    NOTE 2: Here the Incoterms are really important (FOB, EXW, C&F, ...)
    
    2) The Customs Forwarder (or directly the Exporter) has one or more
    transport contracts for the consignment of goods.
    NOTE: here the Carrier has the responsability of the goods.
    
    I think these are all the main differences between these contracts.
    
    At the opposite I do not have now a sample about many Shipments against
    one Consignment... I can just suppose it is something like I describe
    below.
    
    Perhaps the "groupage" could be positioned into this case... Groupage is
    when different goods of different owners is collected for
    logistic/shipment reasons into one Container.
    Here different Exporters shipments are organized/handled by the same
    Carrier (and Customs Forwarder).
    But here, depending of the incoterm adopted/agreed there could be the need
    of further consignment.
    SAMPLE: We could say that under a sea transport a single consignment of a
    groupage container of goods is performed with a FOB (free-on-board)
    incoterm.
    NOTE: With other incoterms where a door-2-door consignment is required
    we'll have a many-2-many case (many shipment, many consignments) even if
    we have a common sea transport.
    
    I could ask better about this to a friend of mine which is Shipping Agent
    and Customs Forwarder, also in the past he was dealing with Logistics too.
    
    What I am going to understand is if we have really many different shipment
    and transport contracts under a "groupage" case.
    
    If you have further samples about this please let me know.
    
    Ciao
    
    Roberto Cisternino
    
    > Thanks again roberto, your input is adding weight to Flemming's
    > interpretation. The more we discuss this, the more I am persuaded that
    > the idea of "Consignment as Contractual information" is ambiguous.
    >
    > Would it be more appropriate to think of...
    > Shipment as the commercial/trade level arrangements seen by the
    > Importer/Exporter (Customer/Supplier).
    > and make our definition: "An identifiable collection of one or more
    > goods items (available to be) transported from the original shipper, to
    > the ultimate recipient. Note: A shipment can be transported in different
    > consignments."
    >
    > Consignment as the logistical/transport level arrangements as seen by
    > the Carriers, Forwarders, etc.
    > and make the definition: "A separately identifiable collection of goods
    > items (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee
    > via one or more modes of transport. Note: A consignment can composed of
    > more thn one shipment."
    >
    > Any comments?
    >
    > roberto@javest.com wrote:
    >> Hello TSC,
    >>
    >> I agree completely with the "One Shipment - Many Consignments"
    >> requirement.
    >>
    >> Commonly a "Shipment" is required by an "Exporter" according an
    >> "Incoterm",
    >> this reason the Exporter starts a specific "shipment" contract with a
    >> "Customs Forwarder" and 1/more "transport" contract with 1/more
    >> transport
    >> carriers.
    >> The relationship between these actors can be different case by case but
    >> it
    >> is normal that a complete shipment could need many consignment
    >> (transports
    >> also intermodal).
    >>
    >> The "Booking" identifier usually is strictly connected with a shipment
    >> (expecially by air or sea) but again a very long shipment could make use
    >> of different carriers.
    >>
    >> >From the Customs side (as found in the SAD/DAU customs declaration)
    >> there
    >> should be the case goods will travel across many countries, with
    >> different
    >> customs offices, different customs forwarders, different carriers.
    >>
    >> Then of course there is the splitted consignment case due to many
    >> reasons:
    >> - Availability of goods
    >> - Same shipment, different goods, same buyer.... but different receivers
    >> (g.e. The main office of a shipping "sea" company buyes some spare parts
    >> and need those parts are splitted and delivered to different
    >> vessels/ports)
    >>
    >> The result is always the same, the need of many transport contract
    >> controlled by the same exporter often for a whole shipment with a
    >> shipment
    >> organization made by a customs forwarder or more.
    >>
    >> Really complex,
    >> if I wrong something please revert.
    >>
    >> Hope these samples are a good info.
    >>
    >> Best regards
    >>
    >> UBL ITLSC
    >> co-chair
    >> Roberto Cisternino
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Thanks for your comments.  I will review them over the next few days.
    >>>
    >>> In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we mean
    >>> by shipment and consignment.  This has been almost impossible to
    >>> clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of
    >>> definition  I personally believe that the distinction between these two
    >>> is grey and ambiguous in the industry.  The correct term depends on the
    >>> context in which it is used.
    >>>
    >>> Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We took
    >>> Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods
    >>> items
    >>> (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via
    >>> one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport
    >>> contract
    >>> document".  And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one or
    >>> more line items (available to be) transported together from the seller
    >>> i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A
    >>> shipment can be transported in different consignments"
    >>>
    >>> However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a contractual
    >>> arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in one
    >>> collection of goods items.  So we have viewed the Shipment as the
    >>> logistical collection of goods items.  Just as there are cases where a
    >>> Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases where
    >>> a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into
    >>> different Shipments  (for economics or ease of logistics).  The TBG3
    >>> high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment can
    >>> transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A
    >>> Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
    >>>
    >>> In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the separation
    >>> is academic.
    >>>
    >>> However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to
    >>> One
    >>> Shipment - Many Consignments.  In which case it does matter that we get
    >>> the separation correct.  This is a further argument for adopting the
    >>> simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions.
    >>>
    >>> Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the
    >>> logistical
    >>> details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and
    >>> Orders).  It means any properties that may affect or vary with the
    >>> actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under
    >>> the
    >>> Shipment.  Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements only
    >>> (what is required).
    >>>
    >>> Does that help?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Flemming Møller Hansen wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hi Tim!
    >>>>
    >>>> I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
    >>>>
    >>>> The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which from
    >>>> the
    >>>> danish requirements/proposals point of view
    >>>> belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
    >>>> There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you can
    >>>> get
    >>>> my answer:
    >>>>
    >>>> Notice:
    >>>> We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
    >>>> consignments.
    >>>> The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
    >>>> consignments.
    >>>>
    >>>> May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment) before
    >>>> we
    >>>> continue?
    >>>>
    >>>> Who have the correct definitions available?
    >>>>
    >>>> (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
    >>>>
    >>>> Best regards/
    >>>> Med venlig hilsen
    >>>> PROGRATOR
    >>>>
    >>>> Flemming Møller Hansen
    >>>> eBusiness Consultant
    >>>> ====================================================
    >>>> EDI & Business Integration
    >>>>
    >>>> MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød
    >>>> Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
    >>>> Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.progrator.dk
    >>>> ====================================================
    >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>
    >>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    >>>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date:
    >>>> 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> --
    >>> regards
    >>> tim mcgrath
    >>> phone: +618 93352228
    >>> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >>> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> Roberto Cisternino
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > --
    > regards
    > tim mcgrath
    > phone: +618 93352228
    > postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    > web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >
    
    
    Roberto Cisternino
    


  • 5.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-11-2007 00:51
    Thanks again. Now I think we can improve the definition.
    
    Shipment "The identifiable collection of one or more goods items to be transported between the original consignor and the ultimate consignee. 
    Note: A shipment can be transported in different consignments (eg split for logistical purposes)."
    
    Consignment "The transportation of an individually identifiable collection of goods items from one consignor to one consignee via one or more modes of transport. 
    Note: A consignment can comprise of more than one shipment (eg consolidated by a freight forwarder)."
    
    
    I understand what you say about the different types of contract that may 
    come into play, but  am not sure we need explain that in our 
    definition.  What do you think?
    
    roberto@javest.com wrote:
    > Hello,
    > in both cases there is a different contract as stated before:
    >
    > 1) Exporter with Customs Forwarder to have a complete support for
    > documentation, customs, transport organization.
    > NOTE: This contract is just a service organization contract - the customs
    > forwarder has no responsabilities for the goods at all.
    > NOTE 2: Here the Incoterms are really important (FOB, EXW, C&F, ...)
    >
    > 2) The Customs Forwarder (or directly the Exporter) has one or more
    > transport contracts for the consignment of goods.
    > NOTE: here the Carrier has the responsability of the goods.
    >
    > I think these are all the main differences between these contracts.
    >
    > At the opposite I do not have now a sample about many Shipments against
    > one Consignment... I can just suppose it is something like I describe
    > below.
    >
    > Perhaps the "groupage" could be positioned into this case... Groupage is
    > when different goods of different owners is collected for
    > logistic/shipment reasons into one Container.
    > Here different Exporters shipments are organized/handled by the same
    > Carrier (and Customs Forwarder).
    > But here, depending of the incoterm adopted/agreed there could be the need
    > of further consignment.
    > SAMPLE: We could say that under a sea transport a single consignment of a
    > groupage container of goods is performed with a FOB (free-on-board)
    > incoterm.
    > NOTE: With other incoterms where a door-2-door consignment is required
    > we'll have a many-2-many case (many shipment, many consignments) even if
    > we have a common sea transport.
    >
    > I could ask better about this to a friend of mine which is Shipping Agent
    > and Customs Forwarder, also in the past he was dealing with Logistics too.
    >
    > What I am going to understand is if we have really many different shipment
    > and transport contracts under a "groupage" case.
    >
    > If you have further samples about this please let me know.
    >
    > Ciao
    >
    > Roberto Cisternino
    >
    >   
    >> Thanks again roberto, your input is adding weight to Flemming's
    >> interpretation. The more we discuss this, the more I am persuaded that
    >> the idea of "Consignment as Contractual information" is ambiguous.
    >>
    >> Would it be more appropriate to think of...
    >> Shipment as the commercial/trade level arrangements seen by the
    >> Importer/Exporter (Customer/Supplier).
    >> and make our definition: "An identifiable collection of one or more
    >> goods items (available to be) transported from the original shipper, to
    >> the ultimate recipient. Note: A shipment can be transported in different
    >> consignments."
    >>
    >> Consignment as the logistical/transport level arrangements as seen by
    >> the Carriers, Forwarders, etc.
    >> and make the definition: "A separately identifiable collection of goods
    >> items (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee
    >> via one or more modes of transport. Note: A consignment can composed of
    >> more thn one shipment."
    >>
    >> Any comments?
    >>
    >> roberto@javest.com wrote:
    >>     
    >>> Hello TSC,
    >>>
    >>> I agree completely with the "One Shipment - Many Consignments"
    >>> requirement.
    >>>
    >>> Commonly a "Shipment" is required by an "Exporter" according an
    >>> "Incoterm",
    >>> this reason the Exporter starts a specific "shipment" contract with a
    >>> "Customs Forwarder" and 1/more "transport" contract with 1/more
    >>> transport
    >>> carriers.
    >>> The relationship between these actors can be different case by case but
    >>> it
    >>> is normal that a complete shipment could need many consignment
    >>> (transports
    >>> also intermodal).
    >>>
    >>> The "Booking" identifier usually is strictly connected with a shipment
    >>> (expecially by air or sea) but again a very long shipment could make use
    >>> of different carriers.
    >>>
    >>> >From the Customs side (as found in the SAD/DAU customs declaration)
    >>> there
    >>> should be the case goods will travel across many countries, with
    >>> different
    >>> customs offices, different customs forwarders, different carriers.
    >>>
    >>> Then of course there is the splitted consignment case due to many
    >>> reasons:
    >>> - Availability of goods
    >>> - Same shipment, different goods, same buyer.... but different receivers
    >>> (g.e. The main office of a shipping "sea" company buyes some spare parts
    >>> and need those parts are splitted and delivered to different
    >>> vessels/ports)
    >>>
    >>> The result is always the same, the need of many transport contract
    >>> controlled by the same exporter often for a whole shipment with a
    >>> shipment
    >>> organization made by a customs forwarder or more.
    >>>
    >>> Really complex,
    >>> if I wrong something please revert.
    >>>
    >>> Hope these samples are a good info.
    >>>
    >>> Best regards
    >>>
    >>> UBL ITLSC
    >>> co-chair
    >>> Roberto Cisternino
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>       
    >>>> Thanks for your comments.  I will review them over the next few days.
    >>>>
    >>>> In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we mean
    >>>> by shipment and consignment.  This has been almost impossible to
    >>>> clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of
    >>>> definition  I personally believe that the distinction between these two
    >>>> is grey and ambiguous in the industry.  The correct term depends on the
    >>>> context in which it is used.
    >>>>
    >>>> Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We took
    >>>> Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods
    >>>> items
    >>>> (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via
    >>>> one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport
    >>>> contract
    >>>> document".  And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one or
    >>>> more line items (available to be) transported together from the seller
    >>>> i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A
    >>>> shipment can be transported in different consignments"
    >>>>
    >>>> However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a contractual
    >>>> arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in one
    >>>> collection of goods items.  So we have viewed the Shipment as the
    >>>> logistical collection of goods items.  Just as there are cases where a
    >>>> Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases where
    >>>> a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into
    >>>> different Shipments  (for economics or ease of logistics).  The TBG3
    >>>> high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment can
    >>>> transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A
    >>>> Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
    >>>>
    >>>> In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the separation
    >>>> is academic.
    >>>>
    >>>> However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to
    >>>> One
    >>>> Shipment - Many Consignments.  In which case it does matter that we get
    >>>> the separation correct.  This is a further argument for adopting the
    >>>> simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions.
    >>>>
    >>>> Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the
    >>>> logistical
    >>>> details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and
    >>>> Orders).  It means any properties that may affect or vary with the
    >>>> actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under
    >>>> the
    >>>> Shipment.  Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements only
    >>>> (what is required).
    >>>>
    >>>> Does that help?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Flemming Møller Hansen wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>         
    >>>>> Hi Tim!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which from
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> danish requirements/proposals point of view
    >>>>> belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
    >>>>> There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you can
    >>>>> get
    >>>>> my answer:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Notice:
    >>>>> We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
    >>>>> consignments.
    >>>>> The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
    >>>>> consignments.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment) before
    >>>>> we
    >>>>> continue?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Who have the correct definitions available?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Best regards/
    >>>>> Med venlig hilsen
    >>>>> PROGRATOR
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Flemming Møller Hansen
    >>>>> eBusiness Consultant
    >>>>> ====================================================
    >>>>> EDI & Business Integration
    >>>>>
    >>>>> MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød
    >>>>> Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
    >>>>> Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.progrator.dk
    >>>>> ====================================================
    >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    >>>>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date:
    >>>>> 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>           
    >>>> --
    >>>> regards
    >>>> tim mcgrath
    >>>> phone: +618 93352228
    >>>> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >>>> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>         
    >>> Roberto Cisternino
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>       
    >> --
    >> regards
    >> tim mcgrath
    >> phone: +618 93352228
    >> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>
    >>     
    >
    >
    > Roberto Cisternino
    >
    >
    >   
    
    -- 
    regards
    tim mcgrath
    phone: +618 93352228  
    postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    
    


  • 6.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-11-2007 19:32
    Hello,
    the contract itself is not important but it is the mirror of these words,
    the meaning.
    This reason I think the shipment definition should mention "...the
    organization of the shipment...".
    The concept that goods is collected together for many reasons is ok but it
    is not the shipment.  Also the shipment is not identified as the effective
    transport (this is the consignment) but it is the whole organization.
    
    The contract, if mentioned, is only important to show responsabilities.
    (this could be necessary for a contract explanation not for these terms
    definitions)
    
    Bye
    
    Roberto
    
    > Thanks again. Now I think we can improve the definition.
    >
    > Shipment "The identifiable collection of one or more goods items to be
    > transported between the original consignor and the ultimate consignee.
    > Note: A shipment can be transported in different consignments (eg split
    > for logistical purposes)."
    >
    > Consignment "The transportation of an individually identifiable collection
    > of goods items from one consignor to one consignee via one or more modes
    > of transport.
    > Note: A consignment can comprise of more than one shipment (eg
    > consolidated by a freight forwarder)."
    >
    >
    > I understand what you say about the different types of contract that may
    > come into play, but  am not sure we need explain that in our
    > definition.  What do you think?
    >
    > roberto@javest.com wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >> in both cases there is a different contract as stated before:
    >>
    >> 1) Exporter with Customs Forwarder to have a complete support for
    >> documentation, customs, transport organization.
    >> NOTE: This contract is just a service organization contract - the
    >> customs
    >> forwarder has no responsabilities for the goods at all.
    >> NOTE 2: Here the Incoterms are really important (FOB, EXW, C&F, ...)
    >>
    >> 2) The Customs Forwarder (or directly the Exporter) has one or more
    >> transport contracts for the consignment of goods.
    >> NOTE: here the Carrier has the responsability of the goods.
    >>
    >> I think these are all the main differences between these contracts.
    >>
    >> At the opposite I do not have now a sample about many Shipments against
    >> one Consignment... I can just suppose it is something like I describe
    >> below.
    >>
    >> Perhaps the "groupage" could be positioned into this case... Groupage is
    >> when different goods of different owners is collected for
    >> logistic/shipment reasons into one Container.
    >> Here different Exporters shipments are organized/handled by the same
    >> Carrier (and Customs Forwarder).
    >> But here, depending of the incoterm adopted/agreed there could be the
    >> need
    >> of further consignment.
    >> SAMPLE: We could say that under a sea transport a single consignment of
    >> a
    >> groupage container of goods is performed with a FOB (free-on-board)
    >> incoterm.
    >> NOTE: With other incoterms where a door-2-door consignment is required
    >> we'll have a many-2-many case (many shipment, many consignments) even if
    >> we have a common sea transport.
    >>
    >> I could ask better about this to a friend of mine which is Shipping
    >> Agent
    >> and Customs Forwarder, also in the past he was dealing with Logistics
    >> too.
    >>
    >> What I am going to understand is if we have really many different
    >> shipment
    >> and transport contracts under a "groupage" case.
    >>
    >> If you have further samples about this please let me know.
    >>
    >> Ciao
    >>
    >> Roberto Cisternino
    >>
    >>
    >>> Thanks again roberto, your input is adding weight to Flemming's
    >>> interpretation. The more we discuss this, the more I am persuaded that
    >>> the idea of "Consignment as Contractual information" is ambiguous.
    >>>
    >>> Would it be more appropriate to think of...
    >>> Shipment as the commercial/trade level arrangements seen by the
    >>> Importer/Exporter (Customer/Supplier).
    >>> and make our definition: "An identifiable collection of one or more
    >>> goods items (available to be) transported from the original shipper, to
    >>> the ultimate recipient. Note: A shipment can be transported in
    >>> different
    >>> consignments."
    >>>
    >>> Consignment as the logistical/transport level arrangements as seen by
    >>> the Carriers, Forwarders, etc.
    >>> and make the definition: "A separately identifiable collection of goods
    >>> items (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee
    >>> via one or more modes of transport. Note: A consignment can composed of
    >>> more thn one shipment."
    >>>
    >>> Any comments?
    >>>
    >>> roberto@javest.com wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hello TSC,
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree completely with the "One Shipment - Many Consignments"
    >>>> requirement.
    >>>>
    >>>> Commonly a "Shipment" is required by an "Exporter" according an
    >>>> "Incoterm",
    >>>> this reason the Exporter starts a specific "shipment" contract with a
    >>>> "Customs Forwarder" and 1/more "transport" contract with 1/more
    >>>> transport
    >>>> carriers.
    >>>> The relationship between these actors can be different case by case
    >>>> but
    >>>> it
    >>>> is normal that a complete shipment could need many consignment
    >>>> (transports
    >>>> also intermodal).
    >>>>
    >>>> The "Booking" identifier usually is strictly connected with a shipment
    >>>> (expecially by air or sea) but again a very long shipment could make
    >>>> use
    >>>> of different carriers.
    >>>>
    >>>> >From the Customs side (as found in the SAD/DAU customs declaration)
    >>>> there
    >>>> should be the case goods will travel across many countries, with
    >>>> different
    >>>> customs offices, different customs forwarders, different carriers.
    >>>>
    >>>> Then of course there is the splitted consignment case due to many
    >>>> reasons:
    >>>> - Availability of goods
    >>>> - Same shipment, different goods, same buyer.... but different
    >>>> receivers
    >>>> (g.e. The main office of a shipping "sea" company buyes some spare
    >>>> parts
    >>>> and need those parts are splitted and delivered to different
    >>>> vessels/ports)
    >>>>
    >>>> The result is always the same, the need of many transport contract
    >>>> controlled by the same exporter often for a whole shipment with a
    >>>> shipment
    >>>> organization made by a customs forwarder or more.
    >>>>
    >>>> Really complex,
    >>>> if I wrong something please revert.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hope these samples are a good info.
    >>>>
    >>>> Best regards
    >>>>
    >>>> UBL ITLSC
    >>>> co-chair
    >>>> Roberto Cisternino
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Thanks for your comments.  I will review them over the next few days.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we
    >>>>> mean
    >>>>> by shipment and consignment.  This has been almost impossible to
    >>>>> clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of
    >>>>> definition  I personally believe that the distinction between these
    >>>>> two
    >>>>> is grey and ambiguous in the industry.  The correct term depends on
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> context in which it is used.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We
    >>>>> took
    >>>>> Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods
    >>>>> items
    >>>>> (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee via
    >>>>> one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport
    >>>>> contract
    >>>>> document".  And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one
    >>>>> or
    >>>>> more line items (available to be) transported together from the
    >>>>> seller
    >>>>> i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A
    >>>>> shipment can be transported in different consignments"
    >>>>>
    >>>>> However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a
    >>>>> contractual
    >>>>> arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in
    >>>>> one
    >>>>> collection of goods items.  So we have viewed the Shipment as the
    >>>>> logistical collection of goods items.  Just as there are cases where
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases
    >>>>> where
    >>>>> a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into
    >>>>> different Shipments  (for economics or ease of logistics).  The TBG3
    >>>>> high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment
    >>>>> can
    >>>>> transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A
    >>>>> Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the
    >>>>> separation
    >>>>> is academic.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to
    >>>>> One
    >>>>> Shipment - Many Consignments.  In which case it does matter that we
    >>>>> get
    >>>>> the separation correct.  This is a further argument for adopting the
    >>>>> simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the
    >>>>> logistical
    >>>>> details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice (and
    >>>>> Orders).  It means any properties that may affect or vary with the
    >>>>> actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> Shipment.  Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements
    >>>>> only
    >>>>> (what is required).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Does that help?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Flemming Møller Hansen wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Hi Tim!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which
    >>>>>> from
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> danish requirements/proposals point of view
    >>>>>> belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
    >>>>>> There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you
    >>>>>> can
    >>>>>> get
    >>>>>> my answer:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Notice:
    >>>>>> We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
    >>>>>> consignments.
    >>>>>> The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
    >>>>>> consignments.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment)
    >>>>>> before
    >>>>>> we
    >>>>>> continue?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Who have the correct definitions available?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Best regards/
    >>>>>> Med venlig hilsen
    >>>>>> PROGRATOR
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Flemming Møller Hansen
    >>>>>> eBusiness Consultant
    >>>>>> ====================================================
    >>>>>> EDI & Business Integration
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød
    >>>>>> Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
    >>>>>> Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.progrator.dk
    >>>>>> ====================================================
    >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    >>>>>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date:
    >>>>>> 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> regards
    >>>>> tim mcgrath
    >>>>> phone: +618 93352228
    >>>>> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >>>>> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Roberto Cisternino
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> --
    >>> regards
    >>> tim mcgrath
    >>> phone: +618 93352228
    >>> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >>> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> Roberto Cisternino
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > --
    > regards
    > tim mcgrath
    > phone: +618 93352228
    > postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    > web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >
    
    
    Roberto Cisternino
    
    


  • 7.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-11-2007 21:19
    Hello Tim,
    the last thinking...
    
    I want precise the "shipment contract" does not exists all the time, and
    you are right the contract has not to be mentioned in the shipment concept
    definition.
    
    The Exporter do not have to require the International Forwarder help.
    The Exporter could choose to open different transport contracts directly
    with different carriers and to deal with all required documentation.
    
    The "shipment contract" exists when the Exporter do not want to deal with
    all the shipment-chain actors and he wants pay for a specialized service
    of an International Forwarder.
    The International Forwarder act on behalf of the Exporter for the whole
    shipment organization (expecially transport contracts)
    
    is this appropriate ?
    
    Shipment "The whole organization necessary for an identifiable collection
    of one or more goods items to be transported between the original
    consignor and the ultimate consignee.
    Note: A shipment can be transported in different consignments (eg split
    for logistical purposes)."
    
    Bye
    
    Roberto
    
    > Hello,
    > the contract itself is not important but it is the mirror of these words,
    > the meaning.
    > This reason I think the shipment definition should mention "...the
    > organization of the shipment...".
    > The concept that goods is collected together for many reasons is ok but it
    > is not the shipment.  Also the shipment is not identified as the effective
    > transport (this is the consignment) but it is the whole organization.
    >
    > The contract, if mentioned, is only important to show responsabilities.
    > (this could be necessary for a contract explanation not for these terms
    > definitions)
    >
    > Bye
    >
    > Roberto
    >
    >> Thanks again. Now I think we can improve the definition.
    >>
    >> Shipment "The identifiable collection of one or more goods items to be
    >> transported between the original consignor and the ultimate consignee.
    >> Note: A shipment can be transported in different consignments (eg split
    >> for logistical purposes)."
    >>
    >> Consignment "The transportation of an individually identifiable
    >> collection
    >> of goods items from one consignor to one consignee via one or more modes
    >> of transport.
    >> Note: A consignment can comprise of more than one shipment (eg
    >> consolidated by a freight forwarder)."
    >>
    >>
    >> I understand what you say about the different types of contract that may
    >> come into play, but  am not sure we need explain that in our
    >> definition.  What do you think?
    >>
    >> roberto@javest.com wrote:
    >>> Hello,
    >>> in both cases there is a different contract as stated before:
    >>>
    >>> 1) Exporter with Customs Forwarder to have a complete support for
    >>> documentation, customs, transport organization.
    >>> NOTE: This contract is just a service organization contract - the
    >>> customs
    >>> forwarder has no responsabilities for the goods at all.
    >>> NOTE 2: Here the Incoterms are really important (FOB, EXW, C&F, ...)
    >>>
    >>> 2) The Customs Forwarder (or directly the Exporter) has one or more
    >>> transport contracts for the consignment of goods.
    >>> NOTE: here the Carrier has the responsability of the goods.
    >>>
    >>> I think these are all the main differences between these contracts.
    >>>
    >>> At the opposite I do not have now a sample about many Shipments against
    >>> one Consignment... I can just suppose it is something like I describe
    >>> below.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps the "groupage" could be positioned into this case... Groupage
    >>> is
    >>> when different goods of different owners is collected for
    >>> logistic/shipment reasons into one Container.
    >>> Here different Exporters shipments are organized/handled by the same
    >>> Carrier (and Customs Forwarder).
    >>> But here, depending of the incoterm adopted/agreed there could be the
    >>> need
    >>> of further consignment.
    >>> SAMPLE: We could say that under a sea transport a single consignment of
    >>> a
    >>> groupage container of goods is performed with a FOB (free-on-board)
    >>> incoterm.
    >>> NOTE: With other incoterms where a door-2-door consignment is required
    >>> we'll have a many-2-many case (many shipment, many consignments) even
    >>> if
    >>> we have a common sea transport.
    >>>
    >>> I could ask better about this to a friend of mine which is Shipping
    >>> Agent
    >>> and Customs Forwarder, also in the past he was dealing with Logistics
    >>> too.
    >>>
    >>> What I am going to understand is if we have really many different
    >>> shipment
    >>> and transport contracts under a "groupage" case.
    >>>
    >>> If you have further samples about this please let me know.
    >>>
    >>> Ciao
    >>>
    >>> Roberto Cisternino
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Thanks again roberto, your input is adding weight to Flemming's
    >>>> interpretation. The more we discuss this, the more I am persuaded that
    >>>> the idea of "Consignment as Contractual information" is ambiguous.
    >>>>
    >>>> Would it be more appropriate to think of...
    >>>> Shipment as the commercial/trade level arrangements seen by the
    >>>> Importer/Exporter (Customer/Supplier).
    >>>> and make our definition: "An identifiable collection of one or more
    >>>> goods items (available to be) transported from the original shipper,
    >>>> to
    >>>> the ultimate recipient. Note: A shipment can be transported in
    >>>> different
    >>>> consignments."
    >>>>
    >>>> Consignment as the logistical/transport level arrangements as seen by
    >>>> the Carriers, Forwarders, etc.
    >>>> and make the definition: "A separately identifiable collection of
    >>>> goods
    >>>> items (available to be) transported from one consignor to one
    >>>> consignee
    >>>> via one or more modes of transport. Note: A consignment can composed
    >>>> of
    >>>> more thn one shipment."
    >>>>
    >>>> Any comments?
    >>>>
    >>>> roberto@javest.com wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hello TSC,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I agree completely with the "One Shipment - Many Consignments"
    >>>>> requirement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Commonly a "Shipment" is required by an "Exporter" according an
    >>>>> "Incoterm",
    >>>>> this reason the Exporter starts a specific "shipment" contract with a
    >>>>> "Customs Forwarder" and 1/more "transport" contract with 1/more
    >>>>> transport
    >>>>> carriers.
    >>>>> The relationship between these actors can be different case by case
    >>>>> but
    >>>>> it
    >>>>> is normal that a complete shipment could need many consignment
    >>>>> (transports
    >>>>> also intermodal).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The "Booking" identifier usually is strictly connected with a
    >>>>> shipment
    >>>>> (expecially by air or sea) but again a very long shipment could make
    >>>>> use
    >>>>> of different carriers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> >From the Customs side (as found in the SAD/DAU customs declaration)
    >>>>> there
    >>>>> should be the case goods will travel across many countries, with
    >>>>> different
    >>>>> customs offices, different customs forwarders, different carriers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Then of course there is the splitted consignment case due to many
    >>>>> reasons:
    >>>>> - Availability of goods
    >>>>> - Same shipment, different goods, same buyer.... but different
    >>>>> receivers
    >>>>> (g.e. The main office of a shipping "sea" company buyes some spare
    >>>>> parts
    >>>>> and need those parts are splitted and delivered to different
    >>>>> vessels/ports)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The result is always the same, the need of many transport contract
    >>>>> controlled by the same exporter often for a whole shipment with a
    >>>>> shipment
    >>>>> organization made by a customs forwarder or more.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Really complex,
    >>>>> if I wrong something please revert.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hope these samples are a good info.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Best regards
    >>>>>
    >>>>> UBL ITLSC
    >>>>> co-chair
    >>>>> Roberto Cisternino
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Thanks for your comments.  I will review them over the next few
    >>>>>> days.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> In the meantime I appreciate your comments about defining what we
    >>>>>> mean
    >>>>>> by shipment and consignment.  This has been almost impossible to
    >>>>>> clarify, so we have adopted a simplifed but consistent set of
    >>>>>> definition  I personally believe that the distinction between these
    >>>>>> two
    >>>>>> is grey and ambiguous in the industry.  The correct term depends on
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> context in which it is used.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Back in 2005 we adopted the (then) draft definitions from TBG3. We
    >>>>>> took
    >>>>>> Consignment to mean "A separately identifiable collection of goods
    >>>>>> items
    >>>>>> (available to be) transported from one consignor to one consignee
    >>>>>> via
    >>>>>> one or more modes of transport. One consignment = One transport
    >>>>>> contract
    >>>>>> document".  And Shipment to mean "An identifiable collection of one
    >>>>>> or
    >>>>>> more line items (available to be) transported together from the
    >>>>>> seller
    >>>>>> i.e. original shipper, to the buyer i.e. ultimate consignee. Note: A
    >>>>>> shipment can be transported in different consignments"
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> However we had a problem with the idea of Consignment as a
    >>>>>> contractual
    >>>>>> arrangement and Consignment as the physical units that are moved in
    >>>>>> one
    >>>>>> collection of goods items.  So we have viewed the Shipment as the
    >>>>>> logistical collection of goods items.  Just as there are cases where
    >>>>>> a
    >>>>>> Shipment can be transport different Consignments, there are cases
    >>>>>> where
    >>>>>> a Consignment (contractual) can be split for transportation into
    >>>>>> different Shipments  (for economics or ease of logistics).  The TBG3
    >>>>>> high level model diagram showed this but the definitions did not.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Perhaps in the definitions for Shipment it should read "A Shipment
    >>>>>> can
    >>>>>> transport different Consigments" and Consignment should say "A
    >>>>>> Consigment can be transported in different Shipments".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> In UBL 2.0 we have a 1:1 relationship between the two so the
    >>>>>> separation
    >>>>>> is academic.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> However, i can see a requiremnt to have the relationship extended to
    >>>>>> One
    >>>>>> Shipment - Many Consignments.  In which case it does matter that we
    >>>>>> get
    >>>>>> the separation correct.  This is a further argument for adopting the
    >>>>>> simpliifed Consignment= contract and Shipment = event, distinctions.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Following the above idea allows us to identify Shipments (the
    >>>>>> logistical
    >>>>>> details) with the contractual Consignment and trade-view Invoice
    >>>>>> (and
    >>>>>> Orders).  It means any properties that may affect or vary with the
    >>>>>> actual movements of the goods (what happens) should be covered under
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>> Shipment.  Consignment details cover the contractual arrangements
    >>>>>> only
    >>>>>> (what is required).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Does that help?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Flemming Møller Hansen wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hi Tim!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I enclose my comments to your draft for Shipment and Consignment.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The major part of my comments are dealing with information, which
    >>>>>>> from
    >>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> danish requirements/proposals point of view
    >>>>>>> belong to a Consignment not to a Shipment.
    >>>>>>> There is also a few items I have to investigate further before you
    >>>>>>> can
    >>>>>>> get
    >>>>>>> my answer:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Notice:
    >>>>>>> We have decided only to deal with a single shipment with multiple
    >>>>>>> consignments.
    >>>>>>> The TBG2/3 model operates with multiple shipments and multiple
    >>>>>>> consignments.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> May be we need to clarify the definitions (Shipment/Consigment)
    >>>>>>> before
    >>>>>>> we
    >>>>>>> continue?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Who have the correct definitions available?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> (See attached file: Comments to TIM.xls)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Best regards/
    >>>>>>> Med venlig hilsen
    >>>>>>> PROGRATOR
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Flemming Møller Hansen
    >>>>>>> eBusiness Consultant
    >>>>>>> ====================================================
    >>>>>>> EDI & Business Integration
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> MACH Aps, Blokken 9, 3460 Birkerød
    >>>>>>> Tlf: 4582 1600, Direkte: 4590 2037
    >>>>>>> Fax: 4582 1644, Mobil: 2120 1965
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.progrator.dk
    >>>>>>> ====================================================
    >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
    >>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    >>>>>>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/890 - Release Date:
    >>>>>>> 7/07/2007 3:26 PM
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> regards
    >>>>>> tim mcgrath
    >>>>>> phone: +618 93352228
    >>>>>> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >>>>>> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Roberto Cisternino
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> regards
    >>>> tim mcgrath
    >>>> phone: +618 93352228
    >>>> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >>>> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Roberto Cisternino
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> --
    >> regards
    >> tim mcgrath
    >> phone: +618 93352228
    >> postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
    >> web: http://www.portcomm.com.au/tmcgrath
    >>
    >
    >
    > Roberto Cisternino
    >
    
    
    Roberto Cisternino
    
    
    


  • 8.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 09-10-2007 06:43
      |   view attached

    Attachment(s)

    zip
    draftUBL2.1transport.zip   1011 KB 1 version


  • 9.  RE: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-09-2007 18:37
    Tim, etal,
    
    Thanks for adding additional insight into a continuing struggle that I have
    understanding the distinction between Shipment and Consignment. I personally
    believe that the UNTDED established definitions need to be embellished so
    that there can be a broader community understanding and acceptance. I guess
    those who work with the terms on a day to day basis already have context in
    place and so don't have a problem.
    
    I think the problem is further complicated by the constraints of the
    information modeling tools and conventions and possible limitations when
    trying to characterize the relationship between the two terms. In my opinion
    an extended characterization of the "one-to-many" and the "many-to-one"
    relationships is needed along with additional verbiage that gets to the real
    intent. If the relationship between shipment and consignment is many-to-many
    then perhaps there is a better way of presenting it; maybe through the
    inclusion of explanatory modifiers to the terms shipment and consignment. By
    this I mean can we use terms something like single_consignment_shipment,
    multiple_consignments_shipment, split_consignment_shipment? Conversely could
    we use singly_shipped_consignment, multiply_shipped_consignment? 
    
    Hope this doesn't seem too unconventional.......
    
    Regards,
    Andy 
    
    


  • 10.  Re: [ubl-tsc] Re: Shipment and Consignment for Danish Requirement

    Posted 07-10-2007 06:38
    Similar to the situation we had with Goods Item and Transport Equipment, 
    we will need some documents to have "One Shipment- Many Consignments" 
    and others to have "One Consignment-Many Shipments".
    
    What you propose could become part of the document name qualifier, e.g. 
    "a single-consignment-shipment waybill", but at the BIE level we need to 
    ensure the correct associations exist.
    
    At one time we did have Shipment containing one or more optional 
    Consignments and Consignment containing one or more optional Shipments.  
    We might want to reintroduce this idea, but it would mean documenting 
    the integrity rules about how these should be used.
    
    
    Andrew Schoka wrote:
    > Tim, etal,
    >
    > Thanks for adding additional insight into a continuing struggle that I have
    > understanding the distinction between Shipment and Consignment. I personally
    > believe that the UNTDED established definitions need to be embellished so
    > that there can be a broader community understanding and acceptance. I guess
    > those who work with the terms on a day to day basis already have context in
    > place and so don't have a problem.
    >
    > I think the problem is further complicated by the constraints of the
    > information modeling tools and conventions and possible limitations when
    > trying to characterize the relationship between the two terms. In my opinion
    > an extended characterization of the "one-to-many" and the "many-to-one"
    > relationships is needed along with additional verbiage that gets to the real
    > intent. If the relationship between shipment and consignment is many-to-many
    > then perhaps there is a better way of presenting it; maybe through the
    > inclusion of explanatory modifiers to the terms shipment and consignment. By
    > this I mean can we use terms something like single_consignment_shipment,
    > multiple_consignments_shipment, split_consignment_shipment? Conversely could
    > we use singly_shipped_consignment, multiply_shipped_consignment? 
    >
    > Hope this doesn't seem too unconventional.......
    >
    > Regards,
    > Andy 
    >
    >