Attorney Gil Nadel, Gilad Paz
The magistrates court of Haifa has recently decided to accept the lawsuit of a ground carrier vs. a company of Customs agents, for failure to pay shipment expenses. The defendants did not deny having ordered the shipment but they claimed the shipment had arrived a few hours in delay, which justifies withholding payment for it. The court overruled this claim and accepted the entire lawsuit.
The case and the claims made by the parties:
A company which provides ground carrier services, sued a Customs agent for failure to pay a total of NIS 2,000 for a shipment that had been made from Ashdod Port to a factory in the Misgav industrial zone.
The Customs agent claimed the shipment had arrived to its destination at six p.m., instead of at three p.m. as the parties had agreed. The agent furthermore claimed that this delay warranted a refusal to pay for the shipment.
It was discovered that the delay was a result of the shipment being collected late, as well as the fact that the truck had another delivery to make in the same area. The Customs agent claimed that this was a complete breach of the agreement made between the parties, thereby warranting a failure to pay for the shipment.
Since the lawsuit was submitted as a summary procedure, the defendants did not automatically have the right to submit a statement of defense. Instead, they were required to request permission to defend themselves.
The rule determined by the verdict was that the defendants must be permitted to defend themselves in this proceeding, provided they had some sort of defense claim, however insubstantial, and as long as it's not a fictitious defense.
The Customs agent further claimed that he agreed to pay for a regular shipment and not for a special one.
The court's ruling:
The court ruled that the Customs agent's claim that time was of the utmost importance in this shipment- is not corroborated by documents. In other words, it was not proven that the Customs agent had indicated in the work order that it was important for the shipment to arrive within a certain amount of hours.
The court noted that the shipment had been supplied, and even on the same day, and so there is no conflict, and yet the Customs agent decided to withhold payment for the shipment. Furthermore, it was noted that the Customs agent had charged a third party (his client) with shipping expenses.
The court determined that the Customs agent had not proven the difference between the fee for a regular shipment as opposed to a special shipment, and therefore, this claim must be rejected.
In the end the court decided that the Customs agent's defense claim is insubstantial and unconvincing, and constitutes a fictitious defense, whereby the lawsuit was accepted in its entirety.
[Summary procedure (magistrates court of Haifa) 43273-12-10. Registrar Ephraim Chizik, decision of June 18, 2012, party representatives were not mentioned].
Notes:
In this case the court made an implied criticism of the Customs agent in light of the fact that the shipment was in fact supplied and on the same day, and yet the Customs agent did not pay for this service, not even in part.
It is certainly possible that should the Customs agent have made even a part of the payment to the ground carrier, and then defended himself in court regarding the rest of the sum which he claims to be exempt from paying due to the delay, the court would have permitted him to defend himself in this lawsuit.
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
