The respondent insurer, Allianz Compañia Seguros y Reaseguros, sued the appellant, Navinorte SAU, for EUR 27,740.62 for the loss of part of the cargo that was transported on the Beza. The insured, Molinera de Schamann SA, purchased 3,730,010 kgs of durum wheat from the French company, Entente des Co-operatives Agricoles. The wheat was transported from the port of Tonnay Chavente, France, to Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, under a clean bill of lading. On discharge, 117,545 kgs of wheat were found to be missing.

The Court of first instance dismissed the claim, because it held that the proof of the disappearance of the cargo lay with the respondent insurer. The respondent insurer appealed to the Provincial Court of Oviedo, which upheld the appeal, finding that the insured buyer was a bona fide third party holder of a clean bill of lading, outside the original transport contract. In this case, art 3.4 of the Hague-Visby Rules applied, which provides:

Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in accordance with paragraph 3 (a), (b) and (c). However, proof to the contrary shall not be admissible when the bill of lading has been transferred to a third party acting in good faith.

The carrier appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that art 3.4 of the Hague-Visby Rules is intended to guarantee that a bona fide third party, the holder of the bill of lading, cannot be harmed by a possible dispute over the manner in which the goods were received on board. The bill of lading is conclusive proof that the goods were loaded onto the ship as they appear on it, and yet the appellate Court applied the presumption to the delivery of the cargo to the recipient, ignoring that cargo delivery has its own regulation in art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules. This latter provision makes no distinction as to whether the recipient is a bona fide third party. It is presumed that the goods were delivered as they appear on the bill of lading, unless there is a protest at the time of receipt. If a protest is formulated, that presumption is destroyed. The appellant raises, as a legal issue, that art 3.4 of the Hague-Visby Rules does not prevent the carrier from invoking causes of exoneration and limitation of liability provided for in the Rules against a third party in good faith.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant carrier contracted directly with the shipper, Entente des Co-operatives Agricoles, to carry out maritime transport. The appellant could have proven, in the face of a claim made by the shipper, circumstances of its exoneration for the loss of part of the cargo, since its responsibility is subject to a presumption. However, the insured, the consignee of the wheat, was the final recipient of the bill of lading. According to art 3.4 of the Hague-Visby Rules, evidence to the contrary will not be admitted when the bill of lading has been transferred to a third party in good faith.