The packing instructions in the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air and consequently the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations have been the subject of an extensive review by the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel over the last four years. All these changes are now published in Section 5 of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations.
The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel has agreed to a 3-month transition period to allow shippers to take care of any “in-stock” dangerous goods shipments. The transition period allows for packages prepared on or before 31 December 2010 in accordance with the 2010 edition of the DGR to be accepted for transport until 31 March 2011. A note to this effect is published in the 52nd Edition of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations under paragraph 5.0.6.2 which is quoted below:
Note: To assist shippers in the transition to the new packing instructions that become effective in this edition of these Regulations, packages prepared for transport before 31 December 2010 using packing instructions in the 51st edition may be presented for transport until 31 March 2011. Where this transitional provision is being used the shipper must indicate on the Shipper’s Declaration the packing instruction number in effect in the 51st edition.
IATA has included a new Appendix H in the 52nd edition of the DGR to assist acceptance staff with the transition period. Appendix H contains a list by UN number showing the packing instruction numbers and the maximum net quantity applicable in the 51st edition.
When the transitional provisions are being used, the Shipper’s Declaration must show the packing instruction number applicable in the 51st edition of the DGR. In this instance the date on the Shipper’s Declaration should be the date the document was prepared, i.e. a date up to and including 31 March 2011.
One important factor to keep in mind is that the reformatting accomplished the removal of inconsistencies, systematic allocation of substances and articles to packing instructions and removing Particular Packing Requirements (PPR). Therefore a package prepared in accordance with the 51st Edition Packing Instruction is equally safe to a shipment prepared in accordance with the 52nd Edition.
Lithium Batteries
Due to the safety hazards that are being posed by lithium batteries when transported by air it is necessary to draw your attention to the below important information.
Lithium batteries are currently classified as Class 9 under the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations. Nonetheless most lithium batteries and devices are currently classified as “Excepted” from the Class 9 provisions of the Regulations.
Lithium ion and lithium metal batteries have become everyday household articles, being used to power laptop computers, mobile phones, watches, etc. They are shipped in their millions around the world using air transport. Because of the energy stored within these batteries, improper preparation for transport or inappropriate handling can result in such batteries failing. The effects of such a failure can be quite dramatic and there have been a number of fires reported as a result.
When lithium batteries are shipped on its own, in or with equipment, classified as dangerous goods Class 9 or Excepted, it must be correctly declared on shipping documents to assist the airline to handle it in a safe manner.
Please note that the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations give guidance in respect of the packaging, marking, labeling and document completion in respect of lithium batteries for air transport. Packing Instructions 965 through to 970 are applicable to lithium batteries, classified as Class 9 and Excepted. Each packing instruction is divided into two sections. “Section I” stipulates the requirements in respect of the packaging, marking, labeling and documents of “fully regulated” Class 9 lithium batteries. “Section II” stipulates the requirements in respect of the packaging, marking, labeling and documents of “Excepted” Lithium batteries.
Dear valued customers,
Extract from FTW:
Transnet profits up, but DCT needs management focus
Increased volumes and the impact of cost containment measures increased revenue by 7.6% to R18.7 billion according to Transnet’s interim results released yesterday.
Cost savings of R1.6 billion kept total cost increases at 5.1% despite growth of the business. Profit for the period was up 35% to R1.7 billion while capital investment expenditure increased to R10.2 billion despite economic slowdown.
Earnings Before Interest, Taxation, Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) – a key measure of profitability - rose by 11.7% to R7.4 billion, resulting in an EBITDA margin of 39,8% (2009: 38,3%).
Commenting on the performance, acting group chief executive, Chris Wells, said: “Our Quantum Leap strategy aims at changing the trajectory of performance improvements to higher levels. Pleasingly, this strategy is beginning to produce meaningful results. On rail, both the iron ore and coal lines recorded their best levels during September and are both likely to record strong growth in volumes compared to the previous year.”
On the ports side, container volumes showed strong growth to over 2 million TEUs, while automotive volumes grew by 91.3% to 307 177 units, buoyed to some extent by the Fifa Soccer World Cup. Further, productivity, especially gross crane moves per hour (GCH), is showing improvements across the board. The new container terminal at Pier 1 in Durban is now operating at 30 GCH – a 50% improvement on last year’s average of 20 GCH. Durban Container Terminal, where improvements have not been as significant, requires management focus.
“The coal line is set to reverse the declining trend of the previous five years and we are confident that it has turned around and is performing substantially better than it has in the past,” he adds.
Transnet, which has committed to invest R93,4 billion over the next five years - in addition to the R73 billion already invested in the previous five years - continued its investment program over the six months. Transnet invested R10,2 billion on revamping its infrastructure (from R8.7 billion in the previous period). The company invested R5.5 billion in providing additional capacity and R4.7 billion upgrading existing infrastructure.
TFR increased revenue by 8.8% to R10.8 billion due to volume increases in general freight, containers on rail and coal exports. Iron ore volumes dropped 2.7% over the period due to derailments but it is likely that volumes for the full year will exceed the prior year’s and that customer commitments will be met.
TNPA increased revenue by 15.6% to R4.2 billion as a result of higher cargo related activity which was up 11.8% and a 3.9% tariff hike. Container, automotive and manganese export volumes increased by 15.3%, 86.5% and 56.5% respectively.
TPT revenue was up 22.5% to R3 billion due to a combination of global economic recovery and soccer world cup related demand which boosted container volumes by 15.7% and an increase in automotive volumes.
Please find below, an interesting extract from the Freight & trade Weekly:
New report reveals Durban as one of most expensive ports in the world
It’s official. Durban ranks among the most expensive ports in the world. That’s according to the latest ‘must-read’ for everybody in the shipping and freight industries – the Port Regulator’s “Port Benchmarking and Indicators Research”. It’s the most magnificent compilation of port comparative statistics you’re likely to come across – and in SA terms it’s a definite gold medal winner. It is an in-depth study of all the Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) costs at the SA port network and certain individual ports, Port Regulator CEO Riad Khan told FTW. If you want to know how much a container vessel had to pay in total maritime and infrastructure costs on April 1 per ship call (excluding harbour dues), you’ll find that Durban (at US$27 933.50) comes in well behind Rotterdam (at US$40176.97). But, including cargo dues, Durban steams out into the front for total cost (at US$182 151.30). Although that’s closely followed by Long Beach, Los Angeles and Port Klang costs, it’s still over twice the US$86 251.58 average for the 12 ports and a massive 879% above the lowest costing of the 12
(Kaohsiung). Put together internally, Khan said the report answers almost all of those niggling questions you’ve ever had about the ports. It’s divided into three parts: Part A is: “A TNPA tariff comparison with selected ports for a unitary bulk vessel that is exporting coal out of each port.” (This uses the Port of Richards Bay compared to 10 other major ports around the globe). Part B: “A TNPA tariff comparison with selected ports for a unitary container vessel calling at each port.” (This uses Durban compared to a total selection of 11 other major ports around the world). And Part C: “Port comparators for selected international ports and TNPA national and individual port indicators over time.” Another distinct plus mark for the research is that – although some figures, like global port rankings – use 2008 figures, the vital figure work, like the tariffs and costs, are all in April 1, 2010 terms, as up-to-date as you could expect. And it’s not necessarily written in stone, because this has been released publicly for everyone to read and absorb – and question if need be, according to Khan. “This series of research on port benchmarking and port performance is published for comment, criticism and relevance testing,” he told FTW. “The research is intended to commence the process of long-term key performance indicators (KPI) monitoring and to provide information that assists stakeholders to better engage with the Regulator in its various programs.” Khan invited FTW readers to look at the research and submit any comments they have by December 15. Not that the issue is even then finally signed, sealed and delivered. “Comments beyond this period would also be appreciated,” he added.
If you are questioning the relevance of particular indicators and comparisons, you are welcome to indicate why they are not relevant and which indicators should be used to replace them that better serve the information or monitoring needs of such stakeholders.
Any doubts about the ports selected as comparators can also be expressed. If you feel that any of the ports are not appropriate, suggest those which should have been used instead. Also why your preferred ports should be used in the future. (Just remember that the ports chosen have all released their latest stats publicly – and many of the other ports are either very sluggish in releasing their figures, or keep them totally secret.)
To view this analysis goes into web-site: http://www. portsregulator.org/. When the home page is downloaded, click on “Latest News” in the top right. Then click on “Port Benchmarks and Indicators Research” – and you’re in. Here are answers to a few of the frequently raised questions.
How fast do the gantry cranes work? In Durban 2008, they managed 23 crane moves per hour. Antwerp managed 94 per hour, and the 51.33 average was 123% more than Durban’s. Not that you should think that things must be better in 2010 – the crane moves per hour in Durban actually fell to 22.
Things have improved in 2010 in the average vessel turnaround time. In 2008, your container ship took 72 hours on average in Durban. It was followed by Los
Angeles at 61 hrs, but was still almost twice the average for the six ports chosen, and five times the wait at the best (Laem Chabang). But in 2010, Durban had done enough magic to bring down its turnaround time to 45 hrs average. This placed it well ahead of the LA time in 2008 – although the other port figures are not yet available for 2010.
How much does it cost per ton to handle cargo? According to TNPA figures, the SA port network moved 12 602-tonnes for each R1-m in assets in 2005. In 2010 – when the total asset value had moved up by over 165% – it moved 5 453-t/R1-m. In 2008 the TNPA operating expenses (rands) per tonne of output were
R6.30. In 2010 they were R7.69/t.
It’s all there – and well worth a read.
Regards,
Mario Marchesi
|
Amending the SA Customs Tariff |
|
|
The SA Customs Tariff is based on the Harmonized System, and the HS-based Tariff is located in Schedule 1: Part 1 to the Customs and Excise Act, 91 of 1964. Schedule 1: Part 1 only deals with normal customs (import) duties into South Africa. Duties and levies are also levied under Schedule 1: Parts 2 A and B (specific and ad valorem customs and excise duties on certain commodities) , Schedule 1: Part 3 (environmental levies), Schedule 1: Part 5 (fuel and Road Accident Fund levy), Schedule 1: Part 8 (ordinary levy), and Schedule 2 (anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties and safeguard duties). Other Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 deal with rebates, refunds, drawbacks and trade agreements which are aimed at improving South Africa’s international competitiveness by promoting manufacturing. The most important provisions in this regard can be located in Schedules 3, 4 and 5 which deal with industrial rebates, general rebates and refunds and drawbacks. Since Schedule 1: Part 1 is based on the international Harmonized System (HS), the schedules relating to additional duties and levies, and those containing rebates, refunds and drawbacks should all be read with Schedule 1: Part 1. They are also subject to amendment whenever a provision in Schedule 1: Part 1 is amended and if the amendment has an impact on any of the Schedules. These are then amended to align provisions with those reflected in Schedule 1: Part 1. The Tariff is also amended to simplify provisions and to give effect to South Africa’s trade policy. The entire tariff is normally amended substantially when a new version of the HS is introduced, for example as will happen on 1 January 2012. SARS has indicated that a new version of the tariff will be published to give effect to South Africa’s Customs Modernization efforts. |
This makes sense, since the tariff is based on an Act which will be repealed with Phase Two of South Africa’s Customs Modernization in February 2011. At this stage it is still uncertain as to what the nature of the tariff amendments resulting from customs modernization will be. Schedule 1: Part 1 is also amended substantially with effect from 1 January on an annual basis to give effect to South Africa’s commitments under trade agreements with other countries, customs and economic unions and under the WTO Agreement. Other schedules are also amended from time to time. Section 48 of the Customs and Excise Act, 91 of 1964 deals with the South African tariff amendment process. In the majority of instances, the process is one involving an application which is launched with the International Trade Administration Commission, either by an importer, manufacturer or by SARS Customs, publication of the application for comments with be in the Government Gazette. This is followed by evaluation of the comments, investigation by the International Trade Administration Commission, drafting of a report which is relevant to the application, and a recommendation in the report to the nature of the amendment. This is normally sent to the Minister of Trade and Industry, who then requests the Minister of Finance to amend the Tariff. SARS Customs then arrange for the notice to amend the tariff to be amended to be published in the Government Gazette. The Bulletin covers all the tariff amendment applications, as well as tariff amendments. |
We will keep you advised on any amendments
Best regards,
Mario Machesi
Slimmed Down Incoterms 2010
With effect from 01 January 2011 there will only be 11 Incoterms®2010, with four terms from the 2000 version having been removed, and two new terms having been introduced. Though they have reduced in number, this will not detract from their impact on national and international trade transactions. If anything, their expected impact will be more profound. Some interesting facts surrounding the revision of Incoterms®2010 is that the revision process started in 2008, with seven countries making up the drafting group, producing three drafts, resulting from more than 5 000 pages of comments received. Inputs in this process were also received from South Africa. According to the ICC 75% of its arbitration is as a result of the incorrect use of Incoterms 2000.
The recent South African launch of Incoterms®2010 coincided with the first training session of its sort in South Africa, which was hosted by the South African Chapter of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), in Sandton, Gauteng. The South African Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Sacci) serves as the Secretariat of the ICC in South Africa. It is understood that accredited training courses on Incoterms®2010 may only be presented by ICC-accredited trainers. According to the ICC, at present there are only 20 Master Trainers globally.
The “Inco” in Incoterms takes its name from the first two letters of the words “International” and “Commercial”. If you are not familiar with Incoterms they essentially serve to define the risks and responsibilities of buyers and sellers in terms of their contractual obligations in good transactions. As a consequence with effect from 01 January 2011 buyers and sellers are expected to write the terms into their contracts. In such contracts it is important to reference “Incoterms®2010”.
Incoterms®2010 are divided into two distinct groups, namely: “Rules for Any Mode or Modes of Transport”, and “Rules for Sea and Inland Waterway Transport”. 7 terms are classifiable under “Rules for Any Mode or Modes of Transport”, with the remaining four under “Rules for Sea and Inland Waterway Transport”.
By way of a summary the eleven terms are referenced in the table below in accordance with the “Mode(s) of Transport”.
Mode(s) of Transport
Any Mode or Modes of Transport Sea and Inland Waterway Transport Ex Works Free Carrier Carriage Paid To Carriage & Insurance Paid Delivery at Terminal Delivery at Place Delivery Duty Paid Free Alongside Ship Free on Board Cost and Freight Cost, Insurance & Freight
The seven terms in respect of “Rules for Any Mode or Modes of Transport” are Ex Works (EXW), Free Carrier (FCA), Carriage Paid To (CPT), Carriage and Insurance Paid to (CIP), Delivery at Terminal (DAT), Delivery at Place (DAP), and Delivery Duty Paid (DDP). Of these DAT and DAP are new terms.
The four terms in respect or “Rules for Sea and Inland Waterway Transport” are Free Alongside Ship (FAS), Free on Board (FOB), Cost and Freight (CFR), and Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF).
Incoterms 2000 and even Incoterms 1990 were divided into four groups, based on the first letter of the term namely Group E – Departure, Group F – Main Carriage Unpaid, Group C – Main Carriage Paid, and Group D – Arrival, whilst Incoterms®2010 are divided into modes of transport. As a consequence of the revision, Delivery at Frontier (DAF), Delivery Ex Ship (DES), Delivery Ex Quay (DEQ), and Delivery Duty Unpaid (DDU) are no more.
The majority of terms deleted were in the Incoterms 2000 “Group D – Arrival terms”.
An important change with respect the revision is that the Interms®2010 now also has application with respect to national trade. Whilst you have some breathing space you may well want to consider speaking to your commercial bank and your lawyer in order to ensure that your contacts for 2011 are amended to account for the new and revised International Commercial terms, thereby insuring that your risk is managed and minimised.
Thanks and regards,
Mario Marchesi
