The appellant, Hengshui Yuanda ​(Beijing) Co Ltd, entered into a contract of sale with BRH. The respondent, Schenker China Ltd, was the carrier of the cargo. It was agreed between the parties that the cargo would be released to BRH without the presentation of the original bill of lading on 3 June 2015. The appellant was only partially paid by BRH on 27 August 2015. On 29 August 2016, the appellant brought an action against the respondent for the loss of the unpaid balance of the cargo price.

One of the disputes was whether the appellant’s action was time-barred. Article 14 of the Provisions of the Supreme Court on Matters About the Application of Laws in Trial of Disputes Arising from Delivery of Goods Without Presentation of Original Bills of Lading provides that '[f]or an action filed by the holder of original bills of lading on the ground of the carrier's delivery of goods without presentation of original bills of lading, the time bar is one year, counting from the day on which the goods should have been delivered by the carrier, according to art 257 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China' (Article 257 is based on art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules). The appellant asserted that the time bar was interrupted on 27 August 2015 and only restarted on 29 February 2016, because it had repeatedly contacted the respondent about its claim during this period.

The first instance Court held that according to art 267 of the Maritime Code of the PRC the limitation of time should be interrupted as a result of bringing an action or submitting the case for arbitration by the claimant or the admission to fulfill obligations by the person against whom the claim was brought up. Therefore, the communication between the appellant and the respondent regarding the release of the cargo without presentation of the original bill of lading did not result in the interruption of the time bar. The time bar should count from 3 June 2015, and when the appellant filed the action on 29 August 2016, the time bar had expired.

The appellant's appeal to the Tianjin High People's Court was dismissed (see Hengshui Yuanda (Beijing) Co Ltd v Schenker China Ltd​ CMI630). The appellant applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial.

Held: The retrial application was dismissed.

Both the first and second instance Courts were right in holding that the time bar for this case should count from 3 June 2015 and the appellant failed to adduce evidence to prove that the statutory requirements on the interruption of the time-bar period had been fulfilled. The email exchanges between the appellant and the defendant did not constitute an interruption of the time bar.