EXW EXW (Ex Works) - represents the minimum involvement of
the seller and the maximum involvement of the buyer in the movement
of the goods from the point of 'works'.
The statement 'EXW' must be qualified to give the address of the
'works', which may be a factory, site or warehouse etc. Care should
be taken to note that the actual point of manufacture might well
vary from the place where the seller operates their commercial undertaking.
Under INCOTERMS 2000, risk and responsibility pass from the seller
to the buyer when the cargo is made available on the ground at the
'works', at or on the agreed future date or future time, uncleared
through customs.
The seller must give advance notice of availability (how much notice
would have to be predetermined e.g. through the sales contract).
This point is important as the buyer assumes liability for all risks
from the time of availability on the ground and is therefore exposed
from that moment up to the event of collection. During this period,
the buyer is liable for all risks to the cargo, even though they
are not yet under the buyer's physical control, and this is further
aggravated by the fact that the goods are generally uninsured throughout
this period too.
The buyer and seller should only consider EXW when the buyer can
actually arrange the customs clearing prior to export and for the
immediate collection of the cargo on availability. The Seller should
note that the export of the goods is NOT guaranteed under EXW and
the buyer may, for example, opt to keep the goods in the country
of origin.
Although EXW is a popular term it remains complex. EXW is rarely
compatible with documentary credits (for example) - and the term
FCA often offers a more manageable alternative.
FCA FCA (Free Carrier) - defines the conditions under which
many sellers and buyers actually transfer risks. FCA must be qualified
by both naming the place where risks and responsibilities pass from
the seller to the buyer and by identifying the carrier the buyer
has appointed.
FCA requires the seller to take responsibility for risks and costs
up to this handover, including export customs clearance.
It is important to consider that the nature of the carrier being
used, and the various points of transfer that different modes of
transport may involve, are subject to extreme variables. It is common
that the transport used to deliver or handover is a different than
the actual transport to be used for the main carriage (e.g. collected
by road for an airfreight export). The term may well involve detailed
instruction to make such distinctions and it should be noted that
multimodal transport documents better serve this term than traditional
documents such as Bills of Lading or Airwaybills.
For deep-sea transactions, FCA represents an excellent alternative
to FOB, which is inappropriate in most modern port operations. However,
under FCA the seller hands over risks/control of the cargo at a
point prior to the vessel, frequently prior to the port. Although
this reflects the physical condition of much seafreight trade conducted
using 'FOB'; it is a departure from the commoner financial interpretation
of 'FOB'. This normally obligates the seller to pay for the origin
handling/loading and/or stowage charges raised by the port.
Under FCA, these charges are for the buyer's account. If this is
not acceptable, the term may be modified to represent the passage
of FCA risks with 'FOB' costs.
FCA may involve the carrier collecting from the seller or the seller
delivering to the carrier, dependant on the conditions of the sales
contract.
FAS
FAS (Free Alongside Ship) - is Monomodal in that it may only be
used for transaction where the main carriage is by seafreight. Note
that the entire journey need not be by sea, but the moment of 'export'
must be.
Under this term, which has a considerably long tradition, risk and
responsibility pass from the seller to the buyer when the goods
are placed alongside a named ship (or a ship operated by a named
service) at a named area within a named port. FAS requires the seller
to arrange export customs clearing.
The essential aspect of the term is that the vessel is in port prior
to the seller delivering the cargo into the port area.
However, in many markets, the seller is not allowed into the harbour
area. Even if the seller can enter the port area, most operations
involve the placing of cargo into a berth where the vessel in question
is intended to arrive, as opposed to it having physically docked
prior to the arrival of the cargo. Thus the vessel comes to the
cargo rather then the cargo coming to the vessel.
There are significant risks associated with the older seafreight
terms (such as FAS, FOB, CFR/CIF etc) specifically with regard to
the transport documents issued. Careful consideration should be
given to the appropriate section of the official INCOTERMS 2000
text dealing with 'proof of delivery'. In many cases, the modern
documents issued by lines may present risk-management complications
to the seller when using such an old term as FAS.
The use of this term in the charter and bulk markets is attractive
as an alternative to many of the traditional chartering terms that
are often subject to unique definitions from country to country
- or even between ports within one country.
FOB
FOB (Free On Board) - is one of the commoner trade terms in use.
Yet this 'common' aspect of the term has resulted in the myriad
definitions found all over the world for FOB.
Some of these directly contradict others, and many are supported
by domestic legislation making such definitions unique to a specific
country or port.
In defining FOB as an INCOTERM, it is expressed as being Monomodal
and it can only be used for transactions where seafreight is the
main carriage. Therefore, as an INCOTERM, there is no application
for FOB in road, rail or air transport.
Under INCOTERMS 2000, risk and responsibility pass from the seller
to the buyer when the goods pass over the (named or unnamed) ship's
rail at the (named) port of loading, cleared for export by the seller.
For FOB to apply, the seller must be in the physical position of
being able to load the cargo over the rail under their own direct
control i.e. the loading is undertaken by the seller's own labour,
or by an agent that is under the contractual control of the seller.
Further this process would have to be monitored by both the seller
and buyer or their representatives.
Generally, from the modern deep-sea export perspective, this control
often cannot be achieved as the seller is either not allowed into
the harbour area or, even in those extreme circumstances where they
are, they have no influence over the party loading the vessel.
The INCOTERM FOB still has an application in some markets, but these
are more and more in the minority. Note that the use of an 'on-board'
Bill of Lading or mate's receipt could be appropriate in recording
the passage of risks under FOB making FOB one of the few terms still
unavoidably dependant on such documents.
CFR/CIF
Terms beginning 'C' are 'Contracts of Dispatch'. They differ from
other INCOTERMS as they segregate the point at which risk and responsibility
passes from the point at which costs pass.
Under all other terms, the point of transferring risk and the point
at which responsibility for cost is also transferred are simultaneous.
With the 'C' terms this is NOT the case.
CFR (Cost and Freight) - has a long history and outside of INCOTERMS
a definition with consensus is difficult.
As an INCOTERM risk passes from the seller to the buyer when the
cargo crosses the ship's rail at the origin port. However, the responsibilities
for the costs of transit only pass from the seller to the buyer
at the destination port. CFR and CIF are Monomodal expressions used
when the main carriage is by sea and both are suited to the use
of Bills of Lading.
Because the ship's rail is seen as triggering these terms, it is
often inappropriate to use either in a modern port and reference
should be made to the notes on this subject under FOB.
Buyers are disadvantaged with contracts of dispatch. The buyer must
take risks for a period of carriage during which the buyer has no
means of controlling or limiting those risks. The carrier used;
the costs incurred for carriage and the timing of the carriage are
all under the seller's control. The buyer must consider this disparity
before accepting a C termed contract. From the seller's perspective,
the C terms represent exceptional risk-management opportunities
and are actively pursued as a consequence.
CIF (Cost, Insurance and Freight) - represents the condition of
CFR with the addition of Insurance. This is the first of only two
terms that place a compulsory responsibility for insurance on the
seller. Under all ther terms, the buyer considers insurance as an
optional responsibility. (Refer CIP)
CPT/CIP CPT (Carriage Paid To) - is the multimodal equivalent of
CFR. The named place where the seller's costs end can be a point
other than a seaport (as well as being a seaport), in the buyer's
country.
CPT may be used for airfreight, roadfreight and railfreight as well
as for seafreight when the ship's rail serves no purpose. E.g. if
the destination is an inland point or a modern port with conditions
as discussed under FOB.
CPT requires the use of multimodal documents and documents such
as Bills of Lading or Airwaybills may prove inappropriate in recording
the passage of risks under this term.
Under CPT, risk and responsibility passes when the cargo is handed
to the first carrier (with a carrier defined as either an Actual
or Contractual carrier i.e. a Freight Forwarder or Multi Transport
Operator could act as 'carrier' as could an airline or shipping
line).
However, responsibility for costs only transfer when the goods arrive
at the stated place where carriage is 'paid to'. The diagram represents
this condition with a brace, indicating that the place where carriage
is paid to may be any point in the country of destination.
The cautions expressed for buyers using CFR are equally applicable
to CPT with added complications in that the transfer of risks can
begin earlier. If the carrier is collecting the cargo from the seller's
premises then the risks of carriage pass to the buyer at that point,
while the buyer's ability to control the costs and timing of carriage
only pass at the destination point.
Although these reservations warrant serious consideration for a
buyer, they represent great risk-anagement opportunities for the
seller.
CIP (Carriage & Insurance Paid to) - represents CPT with the
inclusion of Insurance. The cautions and notes made regarding CPT
equally apply to CIP.
DES/DEQ
Terms prefixed 'D' are 'Contracts of Arrival' involving the passing
of risk and responsibility at the point where costs also terminate.
DES (Delivered Ex Ship) - is Monomodal. Although not triggered by
the use of the ship's rail, the point of handover (ship's side,
arrived) will be inappropriate in a modern port. The buyer may not
be able to take control at a point in a restricted port area. An
alternative D term such as DDU might be better suited to represent
an achievable point of handover for both parties.
DES will often financially correlate to CFR. But, for the buyer
DES represents CFR without the disadvantages of placing risks on
the buyer, over which they have no control. (See CFR)From the seller's
perspective, DES reverses the risk advantages of CFR, placing all
risks with the seller until the cargo arrives at the named port.
DEQ (Delivered Ex Quay) - extends the shipper's responsibility beyond
the arrival of the vessel to the point where the goods are discharged.
Although not triggered by the use of the ship's rail, the point
of handover (landside on the harbour, duty paid) is frequently inappropriate
in a modern port environment. The buyer may not be able to take
control at that point and an alternative D term such as DDP may
be better suited to identify an chievable point of handover between
the two parties.
Seller's using DEQ are cautioned that they must be in a position
to pay the destination discharge fees both in physical terms as
well as administratively in accordance with any Exchange Control
Regulations applicable in the country of Origin.
Caution is appropriate when using D prefixed terms with Documentary
Credits as few 'documents' are geared to record the passing of risks
on arrival.
DDU DDU (Delivered Duty Unpaid) - is a Multimodal term that
must be further qualified by naming the place up to which the seller
is prepared to take responsibility for transport costs (and the
corresponding risks of transit). This is excluding the payment of
domestic duties and the ancillary clearance charges associated with
the import process at destination.
DDU will often financially correlate to CPT. But, for the buyer
DDU represents CPT without the disadvantages of placing risks on
the buyer, over which they have no control. (See CPT)
From the seller's perspective, DDU reverses the risk advantages
of CPT, placing all risks with the seller until the cargo arrives
at the named port.
As with all of the D prefixed terms, this term is not easy to use
in conjunction with a Documentary Credit and as a multimodal term,
would require the use of Multimodal transport documents over any
traditional monomodal documents such as Bills of Lading or Airwaybills.
Sellers are further cautioned that, if the intended transit is beyond
the point of entry in the country of destination, then their ability
to move the goods to the final destination may be dependent on the
buyer's ability to first clear the goods through the customs authority.
The possibility of delays in transit and any resultant storage charges
(should the buyer fail to conduct clearance in good time), should
be noted.
Seller's should be equally aware of additional charges which may
be due for payment resultant from local taxes which do not fall
into the category of 'duty', but are nevertheless payable prior
to release.
DDU (and DDP) correlates closely to the generic expressions of 'free
domicile', 'franco domicile' and 'free house', which are frequently
used in the transport industry. Each should be avoided due to their
ambiguous nature.
DDP
DDP (Delivered Duty Paid) - is a Multimodal term that must be qualified
by naming the place to which the seller is taking responsibility
for transport costs and the risks of transit. These risks and costs
include the payment of domestic duties in the buyer's country and
any ancillary charges associated with the import clearing process
at destination.
As with all of the D prefixed terms, this term is not easy to use
in conjunction with a Documentary Credit and in the case of DDP
this payment difficulty extends to any form of Exchange document.
As a multimodal term, DDP requires the use of Multimodal transport
documents over monomodal documents such as Bills of Lading or Airwaybills.
Sellers are cautioned that the payment of foreign duties and taxes
may be contrary to the Exchange Control regulations of their country
and that they should seek clarity on this point from their bank
or appropriate authority.
Equally, both parties should consider VAT if payable in the buyer's
country. DDP may be modified to exclude the seller from having to
pay a VAT that the buyer could recover directly. If this is not
done, the seller's price may include this amount which otherwise
could actually be recovered by the buyer.
Regulations regarding sellers claiming VAT paid to foreign revenue
services vary from country to country, and there is no clear-cut
position in this matter. Both parties should seek guidance in this.
Additionally, although the seller will pay Duties, the buyer would
be named on the import customs entry and will have the obligation
to the domestic Customs Authority for the accuracy of the declared
tariff headings used and the rates of duty applied. Should these
subsequently prove to be incorrect the buyer will have the obligation
to bring any under recovery to account.
DAF
DAF (Delivered At Frontier) - is a monomodal (land) expression which
should be further qualified by naming the frontier (border post)
up to which the seller is prepared to take responsibility for transport
costs and the corresponding risks of transit.
The frontier is deemed to be on the seller's side of the applicable
border unless the term is modified to express that the point of
transfer is the frontier on the buyer's side of the border.
The seller must clear the cargo through customs on the export side
of the border of handover, whereas the buyer must clear the goods
through customs on the import side.
Because the Frontier falls on the seller's side of the border, DAF
can vary from other D terms in that the seller may not be responsible
for all or even a part of the main carriage. For example, if the
transit involved the movement of cargo through several frontiers,
the seller may pass risk and responsibility at the first of these,
obligating the buyer to arrange the main carriage thereafter.
As a land term the application of DAF is for land-based operations
and other D terms such as DDU or DDP should be considered if the
transaction is not land-based. (i.e. it is not exclusively road
or rail or a road/rail combination)
All
our activities are subject to the general conditions of the Federation
of the Dutch Forwarding Agent's organization filed with the district Court
at Rotterdam,latest edition.