This was a claim brought by LLC Novgorodproduct (the claimant) against the carrier LLC Donmaster (the defendant) for damages arising from additional customs fees paid because the relevant goods had to be stored at the port of delivery. The defendant brought a counterclaim for demurrage. The Court of first instance found in favour of the defendant. The Court of appeal upheld the judgment of the Court of first instance. The claimant submitted a cassation appeal.

Held: The cassation appeal is dismissed.

The claimant and the defendant agreed to carry goods on the Donmaster Pride.

On 17 December 2024, the ship arrived at the port of loading, and the loading operation began. On 23 December, the defendant informed the claimant that the cargo was damaged. The claimant hired LLC Antarktika to inspect the cargo. On 25 December, the claimant instructed that loading should continue. On 27 December, the loading operation concluded. The defendant again stated that the cargo was damaged, and suggested issuing a claused bill of lading. On 30 December, the claimant demanded a clean bill of lading. The parties negotiated until 7 January 2025, and the claimant issued a letter of indemnity. On 8 January, a bill of lading was issued. As the bill of lading was not signed until 8 January, the claimant could not complete earlier customs processing of the goods on board. As a result, the claimant had to pay customs fees for January 2025, which were higher than those for December 2024.

Under art 142 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF), the carrier must issue a bill of lading upon the shipper's request. Article 144 of the MSC RF sets out the information that must be included in a bill of lading. A bill of lading signed by the ship's master is deemed to be signed by the shipowner. Under art 145 of the MSC RF, if the ship's master cannot verify the quality of the cargo, the bill of lading should indicate this. If no indication of the cargo's quality is included in the bill of lading, the quality of the cargo is deemed to be good. The bill of lading confirms that the cargo was accepted by the ship as described in the bill of lading. Under the UCP 600, a clean document is one without any clause or notation.

Here, the shipowner refused to issue a clean bill of lading due to the apparent poor quality of the cargo. It had the right to do so. Therefore, it did not breach the contract of carriage, and it bears no liability for the delay in cargo transportation, including any higher customs fees. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Under art 132 of the MSC RF, demurrage is determined by the agreement. If the agreement does not provide for demurrage, the amount is determined by the ordinary fees in the particular port. The agreement between the parties provided for demurrage. The delay in loading was not caused by the carrier's fault. Therefore, the agreed demurrage in the contract should have been paid to the carrier. The counterclaim is upheld.