Gill Nadel, Adv.
The Magistrate's Court of Jerusalem recently decided that a customs agent was responsible for damages incurred to an importer's cargo.
The case involved an importer of rolls of paper. The cargo required a physical inspection and the customs agent, via a secondary contractor acting on his behalf, removed a number of rolls from the container to enable the inspect.
At the end of the inspection the rolls were returned to the container. When the container reached the importer's hands, it was discovered that a number of rolls were damaged and were not suitable for use.
The court ruled that the customs agent was liable for the damage caused to the shipment, and rejected his claim that it was possible that the rolls were damaged back when they were loaded outside the country, or that they were originally flawed.
In its ruling, the court relied on the testimony of the customs representative, who affirmed that when the container was opened, the rolls were whole. The court also relied on the fact that the secondary contractor, who acted on behalf of the customs agent and was present at the inspection was not called to testify and did not supply another version of the story.
In our opinion, the court decision is not free of doubts.
Firstly, with regards to relying on the testimony of the customs representative who confirmed that when the container was open, the rolls were whole, it is obvious that the physical inspection did not cover all the goods (the court even called the inspection a “sampling”), and therefore it was impossible to completely rely on it, especially since it was a single testimony.
Secondly, it seems from the decision that no engineering opinion was brought on behalf of the owner of the cargo, attempting to prove the reason for the damage. This failure should work against the cargo owner.
Thirdly, the decision did not discuss the facts that negate the possibility that the damage occurred during loading. It is not clear whether proofs were brought on the subject, and what was their weight.
We would suggest to a customs agent who wishes to avoid complications like those in this decision, always to make sure to have appropriate documentation of the physical inspection: digital camera, video, etc. This certainly will be cheaper than hiring a lawyer.
תא 1419/06, Magistrate's Court in Jerusalem, decision given 20.6.07. For the plaintiff: Advocate Meiri, for the customs agent: Advocate Cohen-David
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
