If the forwarder wants to maintain the legal status of the agent, the forwarder of the bill of lading is actually in a double agency status. First, as the agent of the owner of goods to arrange the transport of goods, and the carrier to conclude a transport contract, obtain the bill of lading; At the same time, as the carrier's signing agent, the carrier issued a bill of lading.
Uniform customs and practice (UCP500) for documentary credits article 30 as to the transport documents issued by Forwarder (referred to as "Forwarder" in Hong Kong and the same nature as Forwarder in China), the stipulations are as follows: unless otherwise authorized by the letter of credit, the bank will only accept the documents issued by the Forwarder in the following documents
If the forwarder has stated his/her agency status without any objection in the bill of lading, can he/she be released from liability for loss, damage and delay of the goods shipped? To a great extent, it depends on whether the carrier has the right to authorize the forwarder in advance or the right of ratification afterwards.
The dual agency of freight forwarders is a relatively new business in shipping, and this practice has been widely accepted by the international air cargo transportation industry.
Air freight forwarders, acting as agents of the international air transport association (IATA), may issue air waybills to their customers in the name of the airlines of the association to which they have chosen to carry their customers' goods. The air waybill issued by it shall be binding on the airline without question. Since such a system had been established throughout the air cargo industry, it was inevitable that a single airline would recognize the legal effect of such double agency.
In the shipping industry, there is no unified international organization to support freight forwarders to use similar documents. Therefore, a single ocean carrier is often reluctant to give the forwarder the authorization to issue such double agency documents in advance. However, in the event of a prosecution by the shipper, the maritime carrier is likely to acknowledge such documents issued in its name. Although such an ex post facto recognition implies the carrier's direct contractual liability to the carrier, it also implies that the carrier may be exempted from liability by the provisions of the transport documents.
However, as mentioned above, from the perspective of international shipping practice, nvocc has already been included in freight forwarding services and multimodal transport services. The introduction of the concept of nvocc and nvocc into China's legal system can only cause overlap and confusion in the administrative management of this industry. From the perspective of international shipping practice, the legal concept of nvocc is unique to American law and incompatible with international shipping practice.
In addition, the scope of nvocc's business has been covered by the freight forwarding industry with a history of several hundred years, so there is no legal necessity to create this narrow concept. This concept is also inconsistent with the commitments made by the Chinese government (the timetable for the opening of the freight forwarding industry). The criteria to be applied by a foreign forwarder to its entry into the Chinese market (whether as a forwarder or as a nvocc; I am at a loss as to whether to apply to the ministry of commerce or the ministry of communications. At the same time, the emergence of this concept will make it more difficult for China's nvoccs to enter the international market, because it is a completely different legal concept in the country they want to enter.
In conclusion, freight forwarding has not emerged as a purely legal concept. After hundreds of years of development, freight forwarding has become a legitimate and complete industry, its unique legal nature and legal characteristics have been recognized by the international transport industry and related industries. The gap between industry practice and law should be narrowed, not widened: it is doubtful that the legal system would be complicated by the need to separate part of the business (non-vessel-carrying) from freight forwarding. In fact, the correct approach is to establish a unified system of administrative laws and regulations on the freight forwarding industry, rather than artificially create new legal concepts to divide the freight forwarding industry, resulting in the overlapping division of administrative management.如果货代想保持代理的合法地位，提单货代实际上处于双重代理地位。首先，作为货主的代理人安排货物运输，并与承运人订立运输合同，取得提单;同时，作为承运人的签字代理人，承运人签发提单。