Hang Tat Foods USA Inc. v. Rizhao Aquatic Products Group Corporation, Rizhao Rirong Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Concerning the Dispute over Sales Contracts

美国恒达食品有限公司诉日照市水产集团总公司、日照日荣水产有限公司购销合同纠纷案

Hang Tat Foods USA Inc. v. Rizhao Aquatic Products Group Corporation, Rizhao Rirong Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. Concerning the Dispute over Sales Contracts

Civil Judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Rizhao City, Shandong Province

First Instance Judgment of the Economic Tribunal No. 29 [1997]

Plaintiff: Hang Tat Foods USA Inc., domiciled at 412S Date Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803 USA.

Legal Representative: Li Dehai, general manager.

Authorized Agent: Fan Jie, lawyer from Qingdao Qian Heng Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Pan Xinmin, lawyer from Qingdao Qun Xing Law Firm.

Defendant: Rizhao Aquatic Products Group Corporation, domiciled at the middle section of Beijing Road, Rizhao City, Shandong Province, China.

Legal Representative: Wang Qida, general manager.

Authorized Agent: Zhang Shouzhi, lawyer from Shandong Jin Qiao Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Zhuang Judong, lawyer from Rizhao Tian Xiang Law Firm.

Defendant: Rizhao Rirong Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., domiciled at Haigang Road, Rizhao City, Shandong Province, China.

Legal Representative: Yang Shujin, Chairman of the Board.

Authorized Agent: Zhang Shouzhi, lawyer from Shandong Jin Qiao Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Zhuang Judong, lawyer from Rizhao Tian Xiang Law Firm.

Hang Tat Foods USA Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Hang Tat Inc.), the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit against Rizhao Aquatic Products Group Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Aquatic Products Group) and Rizhao Rirong Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Rirong Co.), the defendants, concerning the dispute over a contract on the sale of frozen phoenix-tail shrimps. This Court accepted the case, then formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law, and also tried the case publicly. Hang Tat Inc.'s authorized agent Fan Jie, Aquatic Products Group's authorized agents Zhang Shouzhi and Zhuang Judong, Rirong Co.'s legal representative Yang Shujin and its authorized agents Zhang Shouzhi and Zhuang Judong all participated in the proceedings. Upon deliberation by the collegial panel, the judicial committee has discussed and decided on the case, and the trial of this case has now been finalized.

Hang Tat Inc. claimed: On June 30, 1995, it negotiated with Aquatic Products Group and concluded the No. PTO-9502 confirmation letter, which stipulated that the buyer was Hang Tat Inc., the seller was Aquatic Products Group, and the object was frozen phoenix-tail shrimps, the prices and quantities of which are: for size 71/90, 203 boxes, unit price: 2.95 USD/pound; for size 91/110, 580 boxes, unit price: 2.75 USD/pound; for size 111/130, 717 boxes, unit price: 2.40 USD/pound. In all there were 1,500 boxes, with the value of the goods at 103562.86 USD. The shrimps were packed by 6×2kg/box, and both the internal and external packing should conform to the standards for export. The date of shipment was July 15, 1995, the port of shipment was China, the destination was Florida, U.S., and the terms of payment were settlement by L/C. The confirmation letter specially stipulated that, the seller should guarantee the following: the quality should conform to US sanitary and health standards, the color should be natural, the number of shrimps should be correct, the size should not be too small. There should contain no chemical substance, and no short weight. If any batch of goods was refused by U.S. FDA to pass the customs for entry, the seller should be responsible for refunding the money that the buyer had paid, the ocean freight for carrying the goods back to China and the expenses occurred accordingly. During the actual implementation of the confirmation letter, both parties also made supplementary stipulations on the quantities and unit prices of some goods of certain sizes, with the total quantity still being 1500 boxes, and the total value of goods being 106329.51 USD. Hang Tat Inc. observed the stipulations between both parties and opened the No. BNINYG-100×83/95 L/C on time, and also settled all the payment for goods. While Aquatic Products Group breached the stipulations and caused the goods to be refused to pass the customs for entry after U.S. FDA's inspection. In order to reduce the economic losses of Aquatic Products Group's, Hang Tat Inc. filed a new application to FDA inspection department for re-inspection, but the goods were considered as rotten foods and were still refused to pass the customs for entry. Hang Tat Inc. had no choice but to return the goods to Qingdao Port, China as stipulated in the confirmation letter. Then Hang Tat Inc. negotiated with Aquatic Products Group again and again on the matter, but to no avail, thus suffered from great economic losses. Hang Tat Inc. held that the confirmation letter concluded between both parties was lawful and valid, and should be protected by law. It pleaded the court to rule that Aquatic Products Group should repay 103562.86 USD of payment for goods, compensate 19624.94 USD of economic losses (including obtainable profits), bear the interest calculated upon the lending rate stipulated during the corresponding period as of December 20, 1995, and bear the litigation costs, and that Rirong Co. should bear several and joint liabilities.

Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. jointly contended:(1) Hang Tat Inc. did not provide any effective evidence to prove that FDA had indeed refused the goods under the contract to pass the customs for entry. First, Hang Tat Inc. did not provide the original of the document on FDA's refusing the goods to pass the customs for entry, and the public notarization document provided by Hang Tat Inc. could neither prove the authenticity of the original of FDA Inspection Report preserved by Li Dehai himself, nor prove that the notarized photocopy was the genuine photocopy of the original of FDA Inspection Report preserved by Li Dehai. Second, the formality of the documents provided by Hang Tat Inc. was incomplete, and there was no cross-page seal affixed on the key documents. There existed errors in the language, contents, time and scope, etc. of the documents; that is to say, the documents provided by Hang Tat Inc. were false. (2) Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. had never stalled or delayed to negotiate with Hang Tat Inc. on the matter of returning goods, instead, it was completely due to Hang Tat Inc.'s serious violation of the common practices on the issue of return of the goods that the dispute was held off up to then, thus any expenses and liabilities occurred from the return of the goods back to Qingdao Port should be borne by Hang Tat Inc.. In combination with the above two points, Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. pleaded the court to reject Hang Tat Inc.'s litigation claims.

It is verified through the trial that: In May 1995, Hang Tat Inc. negotiated with Rirong Co. and Rizhao Shijiu No. 2 Aquatic Products Refrigeration Plant (the refrigeration plant was an independent legal person enterprise subsidiary to the Aquatic Products Group, and was also a Chinese shareholder of Rirong Co.) on the specific matter concerning the sale of frozen phoenix-tail shrimps. On June 30 of the same year, Hang Tat Inc. and Aquatic Products Group concluded the No. PTO-9502 confirmation letter, which stipulated: that Hang Tat Inc. would purchase frozen phoenix-tail shrimps, the sizes, quantities and prices of which were: for 71/90 size, 203 boxes; unit price: 2.95 USD/pound; for size 91/110, 580 boxes; unit price: 2.75 USD/pound; for size 111/130, 717 boxes unit price: 2.40 USD/pound. In all there were 1500 boxes with the total value of 103562.86 USD. The term of the price was C&F TAMPA.FL.U.S.A. The shrimps were to be packed by 6×2kg/box, and the terms of payment were settlement by L/C. In addition, it was specially stipulated between the parties that the seller should guarantee the following: the quality should conform to US sanitary and health standards, the color should be natural, the number of shrimps should be correct, the size should not be diminished, there should contain no chemical substance, and no short weight; if any batch of goods was refused by U.S. FDA to pass the customs for entry, the seller should be responsible for refunding the money which the buyer had paid, the ocean freight for carrying the goods back to China and the expenses occurred accordingly. During the implementation of the contract, Rirong Co. and Hang Tat Inc. negotiated on modifying the quantities and unit prices of the frozen phoenix-tail shrimps of three sizes, with the total quantity still being 1500 boxes, and the payment amount still being settled under the original L/C. After the goods were submitted by Rirong Co. to Chinese commercial inspection administration and were inspected to be qualified, Rirong Co. delivered the goods in the name of Aquatic Products Group, who issued the container load plans and invoices to Hang Tat Inc. on August 1, 1995. Hang Tat Inc. then paid 1052 USD of DDC expenses and settled 103562.86 USD of payment for goods.

On August 23, 1995, the frozen phoenix-tail shrimps were carried to Long Beach Port in Los Angeles, U.S.A.. The importer of customs declaration was Great Five Oceans Inc., who was Hang Tat Inc.'s buyer. On the same day, FDA (Dept. of Health and Human Services Food and Drug ADM) automatically distrained the batch of frozen shrimps, and issued a written notice on the distrainment and a hearing, saying that the goods were to be refused to pass the customs for entry in accordance with Clause 801(A)(3) of the bill; if the party involved wanted to provide an test report of a non-governmental professional laboratory as the demurring evidence to the above accusation, the non-governmental professional laboratory should directly submit the test report and other documents to FDA within 10 days as of the distrainment. On the next day, FDA notified the laboratory to take a sample. On September 5 of the same year, Great Five Oceans Inc. delivered the frozen shrimps to the refrigerator of Los Angles Cold Storage Company for storage and custody. The frozen shrimps were piled up in the refrigerator by different sizes, specifically, those of the 71/90 size were placed in 81216 piles, those of the 91/110 size were placed in 81217 piles, and those of the 111/130 size were placed in 81218 piles. On September 6, Great Five Oceans Inc. entrusted Micheson Laboratories Inc. to test the frozen phoenix-tail shrimps. The Laboratories Inc. took 3 boxes of samples from the frozen phoenix-tail shrimps of the 111/130 size, and completed the test on September 20. On October 12, 1995, FDA sent a written notice, saying that the laboratory found through test that the goods of the 111/130 size were rotten. How to deal with the goods in violation of law? On October 16, Hang Tat Inc. notified Rirong Co. that the goods were found by FDA through inspection to be rotten, and the customs declaration had to be cancelled. Thus Hang Tat Inc. demanded Rirong Co. to refund the payment. On October 19, Rirong Co. asked Hang Tat Inc. to find a way to avoid the cancellation of the customs declaration. On October 20, Hang Tat Inc. sent a fax to Rirong Co., informing that the frozen shrimps of the 111/130 size were far below the standards for passing the customs, and that FDA decided definitely to refuse the goods, or else it would destroy them; as for the frozen shrimps of the other two sizes, they were arranged for re-inspection. On the next day, Rirong Co. replied by fax, saying it did not want the customs declaration to be canceled or the goods to be destroyed, but believed the goods could be appropriately treated with Hang Tat Inc.'s efforts. On October 27, 1995, Great Five Oceans Inc. again entrusted Micheson Laboratories Inc. to test the frozen shrimps of the other two sizes by taking samples. Micheson Laboratories Inc. completed the test on November 7 of the same year. According to the result from the test, FDA sent a notice again on November 15, 1995, informing that the frozen shrimps were rotten, and inquired on how to treat the goods. In that notice, FDA miswrote the size of 91/110 as 111/130, and then issued a written notice to correct it. On November 16, Hang Tat Inc. sent an urgent fax to Rirong Co., informing that FDA had ordered the frozen shrimps should be returned to China, and that FDA demanded the address for return, the name of the company and the method of refund. On November 20, Rirong Co. replied by fax, saying that if the goods were indeed refused by FDA to pass the customs for entry, it agreed that they should be returned back to Aquatic Products Group located at Haigang Road, Shijiu, Rizhao, Shandong, China; if the returned goods were confirmed to be those delivered on August 5 and there were no objections in respect of the quality or quantity, Rirong Co. should refund the money by telegraphic transfer.

On November 27, 1995, U.S. Treasury Department and U.S. Customs Service sent a written notice on refusing the goods to pass the customs for entry, saying: in respect of the frozen phoenix-tail shrimps for customs entry on 1995 August 23, with the place of origin to be the People's Republic of China, the importer was Great Five Oceans Inc., the manufacturer was Rirong Co., and the quantity was 1500 boxes; since the goods did not conform to the relevant laws and were refused to pass the customs for entry, they were ordered in accordance with the U.S. law to be returned. On November 29, Hang Tat Inc. informed Rirong Co. of the written notice on refusing the goods to pass the customs for entry and demanded the refund of the payment by sight L/C. On December 11, 1995, Great Five Oceans Inc. issued invoices and container load plans with Aquatic Products Group as the consignee. On December 14, 1995, the 1491 boxes of frozen phoenix-tail shrimps (excluding 9 boxes for laboratory test) under the supervision of U.S. customs officials were put into freezing containers and were sealed up by U.S. customs officials. Hang Tat Inc. also applied to CCIC North America Inc. for on-the-spot supervision of shipment and issuance of the report on supervision of shipment, with the conclusion being that the batch of frozen phoenix-tail shrimps which were carried back to China were the goods supplied by Rirong Co.. On December 20, 1995, China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company received the freezing containers and issued a straight bill of lading, on which it was indicated that the shipper was Great Five Oceans Inc., and the consignee was Aquatic Products Group; a note was specially made on the bill of lading that the goods were permitted by U.S. government to be directly carried back to China to avoid the prohibitory provisions in U.S. law.

On January 4, 1996, the frozen shrimps were carried to Qingdao Port, then China Ocean Shipping Agency Qingdao notified Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. and Hang Tat Inc.'s Qingdao office for many times. On January 18, 1996, Rirong Co. faxed to Hang Tat Inc., saying that it had received the notification from the shipping company, and the returned frozen shrimps had arrived at Qingdao Port, but it could not pick up the goods due to lack of the original of the bill of lading. While Hang Tat Inc. demanded Rirong Co. to directly remit the money to Great Five Oceans Inc. for retiring documents. After that, both parties negotiated with each other by faxes, and directly negotiated in Qingdao on January 27, 1996, but did not reach an agreement on the specific matters of return of goods and refund of money. On February 28, Hang Tat Inc. notified Rirong Co. that the original of the bill of lading, and the originals of the FDA documents as well, had been obtained by Hang Tat Inc. from Great Five Oceans Inc. after provision of economic guaranty; the bill of lading and the originals of the documents were in Hang Tat Inc.'s Qingdao office, and Rirong Co. was demanded to make the payment and retire the documents. However, Rirong Co. insisted that Hang Tat Inc. must go through the formalities of notarization and authentication of the documents. It was not until April 25, 1996 that Hang Tat Inc. informed Rirong Co. that the formalities of notarization and authentication of the originals of all the documents on return of goods had been appropriately gone through, and demanded Rirong Co. to send persons within 7 days to Qingdao for negotiation, otherwise it would exercise its litigation rights. In early May 1996, Hang Tat Inc. brought a lawsuit to the People's Court of Shibei District, Qingdao City, but withdrew the lawsuit due to some reason. On September 19 of the same year, Hang Tat Inc. brought a lawsuit to the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. On January 20, 1997, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province ordered that the case should be under the jurisdiction of this Court.

On October 14, 1996, China Ocean Shipping Agency Qingdao sent a fax to Aquatic Products Group, informing that a long time had passed since the goods arrived at the port, and the expenses for overdue use of the containers had exceeded 300,000 Yuan. Thus it demanded Aquatic Products Group to go through the formalities of picking up the goods as soon as possible, and to pay the expenses for overdue use of the containers; after expiry, it would hand over the matter to Qingdao Customs for handling.

On January 22, 1997, the inspection center of Qingdao Customs distrained the batch of frozen shrimps with the reason of failure of declaration at the customs within the time limit, and transferred the matter to the investigation office of Qingdao Customs on March 11 for handling. The investigation office of Qingdao Customs entrusted the relevant entity to sell off the goods on April 15, 1997 and got 143,500 Yuan, which was claimed by no one after one year as of the date when the goods were sold off, and had then been turned in to the state treasury.

It is also verified that, the ocean freight of the frozen shrimps carried back to China was 5,752 USD, Hang Tat Inc.'s obtainable profits for this bargain were 3,425.38 USD, the fee for supervision of shipment was 300 USD, and the expense paid by Hang Tat Inc. for consul authentication was 35 USD.

In addition, it is verified that there were 1491 boxes of frozen shrimps, with the cost price at 81,344.58 USD.

The evidence for ascertaining the above facts included: the confirmation letter, the list for customs release of exported commodities, the commodity inspection documents, the invoices, the container load plans, the corresponding faxes, the written notice on automatic distrainment, the written notice on taking samples, the list on the goods' entry into the warehouse, the report and written notice on test of the samples, refrigerator's reply letter, the statement on the laboratory, FDA's statement, the written notice on refusing the goods to pass the customs for entry, the report on supervision of shipment, the bill of lading, the manifest of cargo, the proof and receipts of Qingdao Customs, the price certification report, records of investigation and the statements by the parties.

During the trial of this case, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao sealed up a workshop of Rirong Co.'s with a 4000-ton refrigerator on October 18, 1996.

This Court holds: both the confirmation letter concluded between Hang Tat Inc. and Aquatic Products Group and part of the modification to the confirmation letter by Rirong Co. were lawful and effective. The batch of frozen shrimps were inspected by FDA to be refused to pass the customs for entry, thus Hang Tat Inc. had the right to, pursuant to the stipulations between both parties, return the frozen shrimps and claim the payment for goods and relevant expenses. Hang Tat Inc. also had the right to demand the defendants to compensate the losses including obtainable profits and interest. After the frozen shrimps were returned to Qingdao Port, Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. were obliged to receive them. Although the defendants had justifiable reasons to demand Hang Tat Inc. to provide the originals of the documents on inspection and on cancellation of customs declaration, they should bear certain liabilities for failing to retire the documents and pick up the goods with the reason of having doubts over the documents and failing to take other active measures to avoid the loss in the value of the frozen shrimps. Although Hang Tat Inc. was entitled to retain the goods in accordance with the “United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods”, it was meanwhile obliged to preserve the goods. Hang Tat Inc. was neither the consignor nor the consignee in the straight bill of lading, but held it for long. Moreover, even under the circumstances that Hang Tat Inc. could not recover the relevant money and that it had brought a lawsuit, it still failed to take reasonable measures in time, and allowed the enlargement of the losses until the value of the frozen shrimps was finally lost, thus Hang Tat Inc. should bear the principal liability on this issue. Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. should bear the joint liability for refunding the money and compensate the losses to Hang Tat Inc.. Hang Tat Inc.'s allegation on Aquatic Products Group's and Rirong Co.'s repayment of the money, including the payment for goods and compensation of losses, was lawful, and should be supported, but its claim that Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. should bear the interest calculated as of December 20, 1995 was inappropriate, since the interest should be calculated 7 days after April 25, 1996, namely, May 3, 1996. The reasons for the defendants' contention that Hang Tat Inc. should bear the liability for the loss in the value of the returned frozen shrimps were tenable, and should be sustained. In accordance with Articles 18, 19, 22 and 23 of the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Economic Contracts Involving Foreign Interest”, Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the “Answers to Some Questions on the Application of the ‘Law on Economic Contracts Involving Foreign Interest'” of the Supreme People's Court, Paragraph 1 of Article 86, Article 88 of the “United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods”, this Court adjudicated as follows:

I. Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. should, within 10 days as of effectiveness of the present judgment, pay Hang Tat Inc. 110,701.86 USD (including 103,562.86 USD of payment for goods, 1,052 USD of DDC expense, 5,752 USD of ocean freight, 300 USD of fee for supervision of shipment, and 35 USD of authentication fee) and the interest calculated from May 3, 1996 up to the actual payment date in light of the USD lending rate stipulated by the People's Bank of China during the corresponding period;

II. Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. should, within 10 days as of effectiveness of the present judgment, pay Hang Tat Inc. 3,425.80 USD of loss in obtainable profits;

III. Hang Tat Inc. should bear 70% of liability for the loss in the value of the returned frozen shrimps, and should compensate 56,941.21 USD, which should be paid to Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. within 10 days as of effectiveness of the present judgment.

After setoff between Items I, II and III, Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. should, within 10 days as of effectiveness of the present judgment, pay Hang Tat Inc. 57,186.45 USD and the interest based on 11,0701.86 USD of principal and calculated from May 3, 1996 up to the actual payment date in light of the USD lending rate stipulated by the People's Bank of China during the corresponding period.

For the 15,510 Yuan of case acceptance fee, 6,030 Yuan of preservation fee, 2,800 Yuan of price certification and consulting fee, and 1,200 Yuan of other litigation costs, totaling 25,540 Yuan, 12,770 Yuan should be borne by Hang Tat Inc., and 12,770 Yuan by Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co..

If refusing to accept the present judgment, Hang Tat Inc. may, within 30 days as of service of the present judgment, while Aquatic Products Group and Rirong Co. may, within 15 days as of service of the present judgment, appeal to the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province by submitting a petition of appeal to this Court, together with the duplicates according to the number of the other party/parties.

　　　Presiding Judge　Teng Yujiang

　　　Acting Judge　Han Tao

　　 Acting Judge　Fu Qianming

　　December 27, 1999

Court Clerk　Yang Rongguo

Comment:

The judgment is up to the requirements of the Supreme People's Court on the format of making litigation documents. It has a reasonable structure, a clear sequence of ideas, and concise language.

This case is about a typical dispute over the contract for the international sale of goods, which involves three parties from China and U.S.A.. It is of considerable influence, and included complicated details and incurred sharp disputes. Moreover, more than one liability conjoined. The part on ascertainment of facts in the judgment focuses the key point on how to ascertain the breaching fact that the frozen phoenix-tail shrimps were inspected by U.S. FDA to be refused to pass the customs for entry, and how to ascertain the fact in respect of the liability for the fault causing the loss of the value of the frozen phoenix-tail shrimps returned to Qingdao Port. The part provided the parties with sufficient opportunities of cross-examination of evidence, and, upon the legitimacy, objectivity, relevancy of the evidence, in combination with the examination and authentication, ascertained the facts objectively, sufficiently and clearly with well-organized and complete structure, thus setting down a good base for the sufficient reasoning in the part starting with “this Court holds”.

The part starting with “this Court holds” seized the focus in the case and, in accordance with the relevant provisions in the “United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods”, analyzed the nature and functions of the bill of lading, as well as illustrated the rights and obligations of Hang Tat Inc.; it also, in light of the stipulations in the contract and the facts of the case, ascertained the defendants' liabilities for their faults. The reasoning in the judgment is well arranged and highly convincing.

The deficiency of the present judgment lies in that, the case is a case involving foreign interest, but the judgment has failed to state the governing law of this case and the basis thereof in the part starting with “this Court holds”.

美国恒达食品有限公司诉日照市水产集团总公司、日照日荣水产有限公司购销合同纠纷案

山东省日照市中级人民法院
民事判决书

(1997)日经初字第29号

　　原告　美国恒达食品有限公司(HANG TAT FOODS USA INC.)，所在地址美国加利福尼亚州阿尔海姆布拉市得特大街412号(412S Date Avenue Alhambra，CA 91803 USA)。
　　法定代表人　李德海，总经理。
　　委托代理人　范杰，青岛乾恒律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人　潘新敏，青岛群星律师事务所律师。
　　被告　日照市水产集团总公司，所在地址中国山东省日照市北京路中段。
　　法定代表人　王起达，总经理。
　　委托代理人　张守志，山东金桥律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人　庄举栋，日照夭祥律师事务所律师。
　　被告　日照日荣水产有限公司，所在地址中国山东省日照市海港路。
　　法定代表人　杨淑金，董事长。
　　委托代理人　张守志，山东金桥律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人　庄举栋，日照天祥律师事务所律师。
　　原告美国恒达食品有限公司(以下简称恒达公司)诉被告日照市水产集团总公司(以下简称水产集团)、被告日照日荣水产有限公司(以下简称日荣公司)购销冻凤尾虾合同纠纷一案，本院受理后，依法组成合议庭，公开开庭进行了审理。原告恒达公司委托代理人范杰，被告水产集团委托代理人张守志、庄举栋，被告日荣公司法定代表人杨淑金及委托代理人张守志、庄举栋到庭参加诉讼。本案经合议庭评议，审判委员会进行了讨论并作出决定，现已审理终结。
　　原告恒达公司诉称，1995年6月30日，原被告经协商签订PTO-9502号成交确认书，该确认书约定买方为恒达公司，卖方为水产集团，标的物为冻凤尾虾；规格71/90的203箱，单价2．95美元/磅；规格91/110的580箱，单价2．75美元/磅；规格111/130的717箱，单价2．40美元/磅；总计1500箱，货值103562．86美元。包装为6×2kg/箱，内外包装要符合外销标准。装船期为1995年7月15日，装船口岸是中国，目的地是美国佛罗里达，付款方式是信用证结算。确认书特别约定，卖方保证质量符合美国的卫生、健康标准，颜色自然，中间粒数要正确，不能超小规格，不含化学品、不短重。若此批货遭美国FDA拒绝入关，则卖方负责返还买方已付之货款、运回中国海运费及有关发生的费用。该确认书在实际履行过程中，原被告就货物部分规格的数量单价作了补充约定，总数量仍为1500箱，总货值106329．51美元。原告守约按时开出BNINYG-100/83/95号信用证，结算全部货款。被告违约、货物被美国FDA检验拒绝入关。原告为尽可能避免被告的经济损失，再次申请FDA检验部门复验，仍被以食品腐败为由拒绝入关。无奈原告只好按确认书之约定将货物退回中国青岛港，后与被告再三交涉退货事宜均无结果，致使原告遭受重大经济损失。原告认为，双方签订的成交确认书合法有效，应受法律保护，要求判令被告水产集团偿还货款103562．86美元，赔偿经济损失19624．94美元(含可得利润)，承担自1995年12月20日起同期贷款利率的利息，负担诉讼费用；由被告日荣公司承担连带责任。
　　被告水产集团、被告日荣公司共同答辩称：(一)原告没有提供有效证据证明FDA确已拒绝合同项下货物入关。首先，由于原告没提供FDA拒绝入关文件的原本或正本。原告提供的公证文件既不能证明李德海本人保管的所谓FDA检验报告正本的真实性，也不能证明公证的影印件是李德海保管的FDA检验报告正本的真实的影印件。其次，原告提供的文件要式不全、关键文件上没有压骑缝章；文件的语言、内容、时间、范围等方面有错误，原告提供的文件是虚假的。(二)被告从未搪塞拖延与原告交涉退货事宜，完全是原告在退货问题上严重违反常规，致使纠纷拖延至今，故货物退回青岛港所发生的一切费用和责任应由原告承担。综合上述两点，请求法院驳回原告的诉讼请求。
　　经审理查明，1995年5月，原告恒达公司与被告日荣公司及日照市石臼第二水产冷藏厂(该冷藏厂是被告水产集团下属独立法人企业，也是被告日荣公司的中方股东)就购销冻凤尾虾的具体事宜进行商谈。同年6月30日原告与被告水产集团签订PTO-9502号成交确认书，约定原告购买冻凤尾虾。规格71/90的203箱，单价2．95美元/磅；规格91/110的580箱，单价2．75美元/磅；规格111/130的717箱，单价2．40美元/磅。总计1500箱，总货款103562．86美元；价格条件为C&F TAMPA． FL． U．S．A。包装为6×2kg/箱；结算方式为信用证结算。此外还特别约定：“卖方保证质量符合美国卫生、健康标准，颜色自然，中间粒数要正确，不能减小规格，不含化学品，不短重；若此批货遭美国FDA拒绝入关，则卖方负责返还买方已付之货款(C&F)、退回中国海运费及有关发生的费用。”合同履行期间日荣公司与原告协商对三种规格的冻凤尾虾的数量、单价作了变更，但总数量仍为1500箱，货款数额仍按原信用证结算。被告日荣公司将货物交中国商检检验合格后以被告水产集团的名义交货，被告水产集团于一九九五年八月一日开具装箱单、发票给原告。原告支付了DDC费用1052美元并结清货款103562．86美元。
　　1995年8月23日，冻凤尾虾运抵美国洛杉基长堤港，报关进口商为五大洋公司(Great Five Oceans Inc．是恒达公司的买家)。同日FDA(Dept．of Health and Human Services Food and Drug ADM)自动扣押该批冻虾，并出具扣押与听证通知书，其内容是：依法案801(A)(3)条款货物有待被拒绝入关，如欲提供非官方专业实验室的分析报告作为上述指控的抗辩证据，应于扣押之日后十日内由非官方专业实验室将分析报告等文件直接交FDA。次日，FDA通知取样。同年9月5日，五大洋公司将冻虾交洛杉基冷藏公司(Los Angles Cold Storage Company)冷库储存保管，冷库对不同规格的冻虾分别堆放，具体如下：71/90规格的堆放81216垛、91/110规格的堆放81217垛、111/130规格的堆放81218垛。9月6日，五大洋公司委托米切逊实验室(Michelson Laboratories Inc)对冻凤尾虾进行分析，随后该实验室从规格为111/130的冻凤尾虾中取样3箱，于9月20日完成分析。1995年10月12日FDA发出通知书，其内容是：实验室分析发现规格为111/130的货物腐败；货物违法，如何处理?10月16日原告通知被告日荣公司FDA检验发现货物腐败，必须退关，并要求退款。10月19日日荣公司要求原告想办法，以避免退关。10月20日原告发传真给被告日荣公司，告知111/130规格的冻虾离过关标准很远，FDA决定必须退柜，否则销毁；对另两个规格的冻虾则正安排重新检验。次日被告日荣公司复传真称不希望退柜更不希望销毁，相信在原告的努力下能够妥善处理。1995年10月27日五大洋公司再次委托米切逊实验室对另两个规格的冻虾取样分析，实验室于同年十一月七日完成分析。依分析结果FDA1995年11月15日再次发出通知，告知冻虾腐败，并询问如何处理。在该通知中FDA将冻虾规格91/110误写为111/130，后FDA出具书面通知予以更正。11月16日原告急电传真日荣公司，告知FDA勒令将冻虾退回中国，要求告知退柜的地址、公司名称及退款方式。11月20日日荣公司复传真称：如确因FDA拒绝入关，同意退柜回中国至山东日照石臼海港路日照市水产集团总公司；退货如经确认是8月5日所发且质量数量无异议，则日荣公司以电汇方式退款。
　　1995年11月27日，美国财政部、美国海关(U．S Treasury Department，U．S Customs Service)发出拒绝入关通知书，其内容是：1995年8月23日进关的原产地为中华人民共和国的冻凤尾虾，其进口商为五大洋公司，生产商为日照日荣水产有限公司，数量为1500箱；该货物不符合相关法律被拒绝入关，根据美国法律的规定责令退运。11月29日原告告知被告日荣公司拒绝入关通知书的内容并要求以即期信用证退回货款。1995年12月11日五大洋公司开具收货人为日照市水产集团总公司的发票和装箱单。1995年12月14日在美国海关官员的监督下该1491箱冻凤尾虾(除去实验室化验用9箱)被装入冷冻集装箱并由美国海关官员封闭集装箱。中国商检北美公司亦由原告申请现场监装并出具监装报告，结论是：该批被装运回中国的冻凤尾虾为日照日荣水产有限公司提供的货物。1995年12月20日中国运洋运输(集团)总公司接收该冷冻集装箱并签发记名提单，提单上托运人为五大洋公司，收货人为日照市水产集团总公司；提单上还特别批注；该货物由美国政府特许直运回中国以避开美国法律的禁止性规定。
　　1996年1月4日冻虾运抵青岛港，随后中国青岛外轮代理公司多次通知两被告及原告驻青岛办事处。1996年1月18日被告日荣公司发传真给原告称接到船公司通知，退柜冻虾已抵青岛港，因没正本提单不能提货。原告则要求日荣公司直接汇款给五大洋公司赎单。此后双方多次传真往来进行协商，并于1996年1月27日在青岛直接协商，但对于退货退款的具体事宜未达成一致意见。2月28日原告通知被告日荣公司提单正本已由原告提供经济担保后从五大洋公司处取得，FDA正本文件亦取得；提单及正本文件在原告驻青岛办事处，要求被告付款赎单。日荣公司则坚持原告须办理文件的公证认证手续。1996年4月25日原告方告知日荣公司全部退柜文件正本及公证认证手续已办妥，要求被告日荣公司七日内派员去青岛协商处理，逾期则行使诉讼权利。1996年5月初原告向青岛市市北区人民法院起诉，后因故撤回起诉。同年9月19日原告向青岛市中级人民法院起诉。1997年1月20日山东省高级人民法院裁定本案由我院管辖。
　　1996年10月14日，中国青岛外轮代理公司给水产集团发传真电报，告知货物到港时间较长，仅超期用箱费已超过30万元人民币。要求尽快办理提货手续，交纳超期用箱费，逾期则交青岛海关处理。
　　1997年1月22日，青岛海关查验中心以超期未报为由查扣该批冻虾，并于3月11日移交青岛海关调查局处理。青岛海关调查局于1997年4月15日委托变卖，得款143500元人民币，该款因自变卖之日起超过一年无人申领，已被上缴国库。
　　另查明，冻虾运回中国的海运费为5752美元，原告该笔业务的可得利润为3425．38美元，监装费为300美元，原告办理领事认证支出35美元。
　　还查明，退回冻虾1491箱，其成本价为81344．58美元。
　　认定上述事实的证据有：成交确认书、出口商品放行单、商检文件、发票、装箱单、往来传真、自动扣押通知书、取样通知书、入库单、取样化验报告、通知书、冷库的复函、实验室的说明、FDA的说明、拒绝入关通知书、监装报告、提单、舱单、青岛海关的证明、收费收据、物价认证报告、调查笔录及当事人的陈述。
　　青岛市中级人民法院审理本案期间于1996年10月18日查封了被告日荣公司的4000吨冷库车间一座。
　　本院认为：原告与被告水产集团签订的成交确认书和与被告日荣公司对成交确认书内容的部分变更均合法有效。该批冻虾经FDA检验后被拒绝入关，原告有权依约定退回冻虾并索要货款及相关费用，原告并有权要求被告赔偿包括可得利润和利息在内的损失。冻虾被退回青岛港后，两被告有义务接收，虽然被告要求原告提供检验、退关文件正本理由正当，但被告以对文件持疑为由而不赎单提货，又未采取其他积极措施避免冻虾价值灭失，应对此负一定的责任。原告虽依《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的规定有权保有货物，但同时也负有保全货物的义务。原告既非记名提单上的发货人，亦非收货人，却长期持有提单，而且在藉此不能收回相关款项并已起诉的情况下，未及时采取合理措施，放任损失的扩大，直至冻虾价值最终灭失，应对此负主要责任。两被告应连带承担对原告退回款项、赔偿损失的责任。原告关于两被告偿付货款等款项及赔偿损失的诉讼主张合法，应予支持，但其要求两被告承担自1995年12月20日起的利息不当，应自1996年4月25日后七日即1996年5月3日起计算利息。被告关于原告应对冻虾退回后价值灭失承担责任的答辩理由成立，应予采纳。依照《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》第十八条、第十九条、第二十二条、第二十三条，最高人民法院《关于适用〈涉外经济合同法〉若干问题的解答》第六条第一款、《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第八十六条第一款、第八十八条的规定，判决如下：
　　一、两被告于本判决书生效后十日内偿付原告110701．86美元(其中货款103562．86美元、DDC费1052美元、海运费5752美元、监装费300美元、认证费35美元)及自1996年5月3日起按中国人民银行规定的同期美元贷款利率计算至实际付款日止的利息；
　　二、两被告于本判决生效后十日内偿付原告可得利润损失3425．80美元；
　　三、原告对退回冻虾价值灭失承担百分之七十的责任，即应赔偿56941．21美元，该款于本判决生效后十日内偿付给两被告。
　　上述一、二、三项相抵，两被告应于本判决生效后十日内偿付原告57186．45美元及以110701．86美元为基数自1996年5月3日起按中国人民银行规定的同期美元贷款利率计算至实际付款日止的利息。
　　案件受理费15510元、保全费6030元、物价认证咨询费2800元、其他诉讼费1200元，合计25540元，原告负担12770元，两被告负担12770元。
　　如不服本判决，原告可在判决书送达之日起三十日内、两被告可在判决书送达之日起十五日内，向本院递交上诉状，并按对方当事人的人数提出副本，上诉于山东省高级人民法院。

审判长　　　滕聿江　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
代理审判员　韩　涛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
代理审判员　傅前铭　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
一九九九年十二月二十七日　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
书记员　　　杨荣国

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
评析：　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
该判决书符合最高人民法院关于制作诉讼文书格式的要求。结构合理、层次清楚、语言精练。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
本案是一起比较典型的国际货物买卖合同纠纷，涉及中美两国三方当事人，影响较大，案情较复杂，争议较尖锐，而且多种责任重合。该判决在事实认定部分，将重点集中在如何认定冻凤尾虾经美国FDA检验并被拒绝入关的违约事实和如何认定冻凤尾虾被退回青岛港后价值灭失的过错责任方面的事实，给予当事人充分质证的机会，依据证据的合法性、客观性、关联性，综合审查认证，做到对于事实部分的认定客观、充分、清楚、条理清晰，完整，为“本院认为”部分充分说理打下了良好基础。
“本院认为”部分，抓住本案焦点，依据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的有关规定，分析提单的性质和作用，说明原告享受权利和应承担的义务；依据合同约定和案件事实，认定被告应承担的过错责任。判理清晰，有较强的说服力。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
不足之处在于本案系涉外案件，该判决未能在“本院认为”部分首先对本案适用的准据法及其适用的根据做出说明。