Dear Chief Justice and Judge

Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm accepts the commission of the plaintiff in this case and appoints me as the agent. Through our lawyer's examination of the litigation materials in this case before the trial and the investigation of relevant units, as well as the court investigation, the facts of this case are very clear. The defendant Zhejiang Zhongde Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Zhongde Company") signed a sales contract with the plaintiff through the defendant Taizhou Zhongji Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Zhongji Company"), and the plaintiff delivered the three shipments of goods to the carrier designated by Zhongde Company at the loading port according to the agreement, After the goods were delivered to the destination port and received by the defendant, the defendant did not pay for the goods due to a decrease in price. The specific reasons are as follows:

1、 The fact that the defendant Sino German Company paid the customs duties, inspection fees, and other fees for the three shipments of goods involved in this case after their arrival at the port proves that the defendant Sino German Company recognized the receipt of the aforementioned goods through its actions. The defendant, Zhongde Company, recognized that a sales contract was signed between Zhongji Company and the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent three shipments of goods to the defendant according to the agreement. After these three shipments arrived at the discharge port of Haimen, they paid the inspection and quarantine fees, animal and plant inspection fees, customs duties, border inspection fees, tallying fees, port construction and port affairs fees, loading and unloading fees, freight forwarding lump sum fees, etc., totaling 1874202.89 yuan. Except for the freight forwarder's lump sum fee collected by the outsourcing company, all other fees are collected and paid by the outsourcing company. Among them, inspection and quarantine fees, animal and plant inspection fees, customs duties, and border inspection fees refer to the fees charged by the National Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, customs, border inspection and other departments to the defendant after the goods arrive at the port and are unloaded at the port. The tallying fees, port construction fees, loading and unloading fees, etc., refer to the fees charged by the relevant port units to the defendant for the actual tallying, loading and unloading of the goods after the goods are unloaded at the port and taken away by the defendant. The payment of the above-mentioned fees by the defendant Zhongde Company undoubtedly proves the fact that the defendant Zhongde Company recognized the receipt of the three goods involved in this case at the destination port through its actions.

2、 The defendant Zhongde Company claims that the plaintiff colluded with the outsider Chen Ziming to hand over the original bill of lading of the three goods involved in this case to Chen Ziming, and asked him to take and sell the three goods without any basis. Firstly, the bills of lading of the three goods involved in this case are all registered bills of lading, and the consignee column records the import agent of the defendant, Zhongji Company, in China. According to Article 79 of the Maritime Code, a registered bill of lading is "non transferable", which means that although it is still considered a document of title in practice, the shipping company must release the goods against the consignee recorded on the bill of lading. Even if the plaintiff delivers the original bill of lading to Chen Ziming, he cannot pick up the goods. If it is indeed Chen Ziming who picked up the goods in his personal name, proving that the foreign agent company mistakenly released the goods, but paying the above-mentioned arrival fees from the Sino German company to the foreign agent company, it is obvious that the foreign agent company did not mistakenly release the goods. Secondly, we conducted an analysis of the three shipments arriving at Haimen Port, the defendant Zhongde Company entrusting a foreign agent company through Zhongji Company to apply for customs clearance, and the defendant Zhongde Company paying the aforementioned fees to the foreign agent company and the time for extracting the goods. According to the bill of lading issued by the foreign agency on behalf of the shipping company to the consignee, the time of arrival of the three shipments at the destination port is as follows: the ship name TIAN CHEN 8, and the bill of lading number HH-01 is September 23, 2008; The name of the vessel is HONGDA, and the bill of lading number HH-01 is dated October 3, 2008; The ship's name is TIAN CHEN 8, and the bill of lading number HH-1 is November 3, 2008. The defendant, Sino German Company, entrusted a foreign agency to apply for customs clearance on September 25, 2008, October 7, 2008, and November 6, 2008, respectively. The payment of the above-mentioned arrival fees to the outsourcing company was made on September 26, 2008, October 10, 2008, and November 7, 2008 (the first two invoices were paid in advance through reserve funds, but the payment was made after the goods arrived at the destination port, and the third invoice was paid after the final settlement of the three invoices). The time for extracting goods from Haimen Port General Company (hereinafter referred to as "Port General Company") in Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province and Waisha Port Container Company (hereinafter referred to as "Waisha Container Company") in Haimen Port, Zhejiang Province was September 27, 2008, October 17, 2008, and November 5, 2008, respectively (the plaintiff requested additional evidence after the court). If the claim of the defendant Zhongde Company is valid, after the first shipment of goods arrived at Haimen Port on September 23, 2008, the defendant Zhongde Company cleared customs on September 25, 2008, and paid for the arrival fee of the outsourced goods on September 26, 2008. However, the goods were picked up by Chen Ziming on September 27, 2008 because the plaintiff handed over the original bill of lading. Therefore, the second shipment of goods arrived at Haimen Port on October 3, 2008, Why did the defendant, Sino German Company, handle the customs clearance procedures for the goods on October 7, 2008 and deliver the arrival fees to the foreign company on October 7, 2008 after the plaintiff breached the contract and handed over the original bill of lading to a third party to pick up the goods? If the goods were picked up by Chen Ziming on October 17, 2008, the third batch of goods arrived at Haimen Port on November 3, 2008, on the first Why did the defendant Zhongde Company handle the customs clearance procedures for the two shipments of goods on November 6, 2008 and pay the arrival fee to the foreign agent company on November 7, 2008, after Chen Ziming took them away due to the plaintiff's breach of contract in delivering the original bill of lading to Chen Ziming. From the above time analysis, we clearly know that in this case, the time when the last shipment of goods arrived at the destination port was after the previous shipment was picked up! The defendant, Sino German Company, knew that the goods had arrived at Haimen Port before completing customs clearance procedures for each shipment, and settled the arrival fee with the foreign company after the goods were picked up! Therefore, the defendant Zhongde Company claims that it was only a few months after the goods were taken away that it became known that the plaintiff had delivered the original bill of lading to Chen Ziming. The goods were taken away by Chen Ziming, and their witness Chen Ziming stated that the plaintiff had handed over the original bill of lading to him because the defendant Zhongde Company had not paid for the goods, Ask him to pick up and handle the goods on his behalf (Please note how Chen Ziming answered the question from the presiding judge: In what capacity did you go to pick up the goods on behalf of another party? He replied: The plaintiff couldn't receive the payment and gave me the original bill of lading. He entrusted me with picking up and handling the goods, so I took the original bill of lading. I don't know the person from the other party, so they gave me the bill of lading! The evidence provided by the defendant, Zhongde Company, and the proof provided by the other party, proves that Chen Ziming exchanged three original bills of lading for the bill of lading, but did not...) It is baseless to prove that being entrusted by the plaintiff to pick up the goods on behalf of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff hands over the original bill of lading to Chen Ziming for pickup and handling of the goods due to the defendant's failure to pay, why did the plaintiff ship the defendant's second shipment of goods when the first defendant did not pay for the goods, and why did the plaintiff send the third shipment of goods to the defendant when the first two defendants did not pay, while also handing over the original bill of lading to an outsider for pickup? The plaintiff has no reason to make such an unreasonable move. The plaintiff and the defendant Zhongde Company have agreed that the payment method for the three shipments of goods in this case is post T/T (wire transfer). The defendant shall pay the payment within half a month after receiving the goods, which is recognized by the defendant Zhongde Company. This payment method is also consistent with the fact that the plaintiff did not pay the payment for the previous shipment of goods after the defendant Zhongde Company picked it up, that is, the shipment of the first shipment of goods.

3、 Why did the evidence provided by the defendant prove that the "release note (bill of lading)" of the three shipments in this case was taken away by Chen Ziming with the original bill of lading of the three shipments, and the proof from Taizhou Gang'an Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Gang'an Company") that the three shipments "abandoned five gold were taken away by Chen Ziming. According to Article 6 of the Measures for the Administration of Environmental Protection of Restricted Import Wastes in Zhejiang Province, "Those who are listed as restricted import waste shall obtain a solid waste import license in accordance with relevant national regulations" and Article 13, "It is prohibited to change the utilization enterprises specified in the solid waste import license without authorization, and it is prohibited to buy, sell, lease, or lend imported solid waste" Article 16: "Enterprises engaged in the dismantling and utilization of imported waste shall establish a business record system, truthfully recording the source, type, weight or quantity, destination, collection (reception) of each batch of imported solid waste The time of dismantling, utilization, storage, and disposal, as well as the name and address of the transporter, shall be regularly reported to the environmental protection administrative department of the district or city where the utilization is located. The business record book, relevant documents, and image materials should be kept for at least five years. According to the regulations, the three shipments of goods in this case are imported goods restricted by the state. According to the above regulations, they must be imported with an import license. The evidence provided by the plaintiff and the defendant on the import license shows that the user is recorded in the defendant's Sino German company, The plaintiff also declared for export to the Chinese inspection department located at the loading port based on the license provided by the defendant Sino German Company. So the defendant Sino German Company signed a sales contract with the plaintiff based on the license it held, and the goods arrived at the destination port for customs clearance and payment of arrival fees in its name all met the above requirements. But why would the outsourcing company and Hong Kong Security Company issue Chen Ziming's original bill of lading in exchange for the bill of lading and evidence of the goods being taken away? This agent investigates the reasons why the defendant Zhongde Company paid the foreign agent company's arrival fees in the lower right corner of the three Taizhou City Commercial Bank receipts, which were handwritten with "Tianchen 8, Chen Ziming 9,23", "Hongda 10,3, Chen Ziming", and "Tianchen 8, Chen Ziming 11,3". The relevant personnel of the company state that when the shipper picked up the goods, we were the person who recognized the order but not the person who recognized it. According to the relevant legal provisions of the registered bill of lading, We must verify the identity of the consignee. The three bills of lading for the goods all record that the consignee is Zhongji Company. We released the goods to Chen Ziming with the approval of Zhongji Company, but we know that the goods are actually Chen Ziming's, so the above information is recorded on them. According to the records of the two companies, Comprehensive Port Corporation and Waisha Container Company, in their preserved delivery records, the shipper Chen Ziming, we analyze that there are two possible relationships between Chen Ziming and the defendant Zhongde Company: (1) Chen Ziming exchanges the original bill of lading for the delivery note at the destination port, The delivery of goods to the port company with the bill of lading was completely entrusted by the defendant Sino German Company (The signing of a sales contract between the defendant and the plaintiff, as well as the handling of goods import customs clearance and payment of goods arrival fees, can fully prove the above facts. In accordance with the relevant regulations of the country on import restricted goods, this agent has applied to the court to obtain evidence such as the defendant dismantling the goods and selling them for tax payment from the relevant departments before the hearing to further prove the above facts.); （2） Chen Ziming testified that he picked up the goods and transported them to the storage yard of Taigang Company located in Fengjiang, Luqiao, and dismantled them in the name of Taigang Company before selling and paying taxes. This agent requested him to provide the above evidence in court. If Chen Ziming can provide valid evidence to prove his above statement, it undoubtedly proves that the defendant Zhongde Company used the license it held to sign a sales contract with the plaintiff, processed the arrival procedures and paid the arrival fees in his name at the destination port, and sold the goods to Chen Ziming, and authorized him to pick up the goods on behalf of others. This is the relationship between the defendant Zhongde Company and Chen Ziming, and has nothing to do with the plaintiff! In addition, if the buying and selling relationship between Chen Ziming and the defendant Zhongde Company is established, their behavior seriously violates the relevant regulations of the state on the import of restricted solid waste. If the court still believes that Chen Ziming was entrusted by the plaintiff to deliver the original bill of lading to him to pick up the goods even though the evidence in this case so fully proves that the defendant Zhongde Company actually authorized Chen Ziming to pick up the goods, and the judgment supports the request of Zhongde Company, Undoubtedly, it has fostered the illegal behavior of restricting the import of solid waste, and also disrupted the management of the national administrative department on the import of restricted solid waste.

In addition, the plaintiff in this case paid the lawyer's agency fee, which was caused by the defendant's breach of contract by Sino German Company. So, it is a common practice in China's judicial practice that the lawyer's agency fees for foreign-related cases should be borne by the party causing the loss. Please consider this by the collegial panel.

In summary, the plaintiff believes that the defendant in this case, based on the goods sales relationship signed with the plaintiff, refused to pay the plaintiff for the goods due to a decrease in the price of the goods at the destination port after picking up the goods and paying the arrival fee, which is clear and well founded. This case is a major foreign-related case with certain international influence. We kindly request the collegial panel to make a fair ruling based on the facts of this case and support the plaintiff's litigation request in accordance with the law.

Zheng Feng, a lawyer from Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm

March 6, 2009