Failure to follow transport instructions correctly can have serious legal, financial, and operational consequences. This case study outlines a real incident where improper handling of a minor procedural issue led to a rejected shipment, a held-up driver, and the eventual destruction of goods. Learn why following the instructions of the entitled party isn’t just a formality—it’s a necessity.
The Situation
Our client, a freight forwarding company, managed a shipment of chemical compounds for the cooking industry. The goods were to be transported from Bulgaria to Germany under strict conditions: they were sealed with both a commercial and a customs seal. Maintaining these seals intact was a non-negotiable condition for the buyer to accept delivery. Any deviation would trigger a full rejection.
The Problem
At the Romanian border, customs officials removed the customs seal for inspection. The driver replaced the seal but did not:
- Document the replacement in the CMR Consignment note
- Notify the freight forwarder
As per the agreed transport protocol, this replacement should have been reported immediately to allow the consignee to prepare for the discrepancy. But because the change wasn’t recorded or communicated, the consignee rejected the goods upon delivery due to the different customs seal.
The Fallout
We were brought in after the rejection. We contacted the client’s contractual partner to request that the consignee reconsider, since the commercial seal was intact and the product was unharmed. The consignee allowed an inspection on-site. The surveyor confirmed the goods were untouched and usable.
Still, the consignee maintained the rejection. With no official instructions on what to do next and a driver stuck on-site for four days in the middle of summer, the carrier had no choice but to return the goods to Bulgaria.
Legal Background: CMR Convention Articles 14 & 15
- Article 14(1): If the contract can no longer be executed per the CMR note, the carrier must request instructions from the party entitled to dispose of the goods.
- Article 14(2): If no instructions are received in time, the carrier may act in what they believe is the best interest of the entitled party.
- Article 15(1): If delivery is prevented at the destination, the carrier must contact the sender for instructions.
What Went Wrong
- The consignee’s instructions came too late—only after the shipment was already en route back to Bulgaria
- The driver was kept in limbo for days with no resolution or directive
- Communication gaps between the freight forwarders, carrier, and sender delayed action
- The ultimate outcome? The goods were destroyed. Liability and compensation issues remain unresolved
Key Takeaways
- Every seal matters – Even a minor customs seal issue can result in full rejection.
- Record everything – Any change must be noted in the CMR and communicated immediately.
- Silence is costly – Lack of timely instructions leaves carriers with no choice but to make executive decisions.
- Delays hurt everyone – The longer the indecision, the higher the chance of loss, destruction, and legal trouble.
- Respect the CMR Convention – Knowing and applying its articles in real-time is critical to mitigating risk.
Final Thoughts
This case underscores the vital importance of coordination, documentation, and proactive communication in international transport. In a system where even a broken seal can ruin a shipment, following the correct procedures isn’t optional—it’s survival.