INCOTERMS 2000
2000年國際貿易術語解釋通則
Entry into force 1st JAN 2000
FOREWORD
By Maria Livanos Cattaui, Secretary General of ICC
The global economy has given businesses broader access than ever before to markets all over the world. Goods are sold in more countries, in larger quantities, and in greater variety. But as the volume and complexity of international sales increase, so do possibilities for misunderstandings and costly disputes when sales contracts are not adequately drafted.
Incoterms, the official ICC rules for the interpretation of trade terms, facilitate the conduct of international trade. Reference to Incoterms 2000 in a sales contract defines clearly the parties’ respective obligations and reduces the risk of legal complications.
Since the creation of Incoterms by ICC in 1936, this undisputed world-wide contractual standard has been regularly updated to keep pace with the development of international trade. Incoterms 2000 take account of the recent spread of customs –free zones, the increased use of electronic communications in business transactions, and changes in transport practices. Incoterms 2000 offer a simpler and clearer presentation of the 13 definitions, all of which have been revised.
The broad expertise of ICC’s Commission on International Commercial Practice, whose membership is drawn from all parts of the world and all trade sectors, ensures that Incoterms 2000 respond to business needs everywhere.
INTRODUCTION
引言
1. PRUPOSE AND SCOPE OF INCOTERMS
1. 《國際貿易術語解釋通則》的宗旨和范圍
The purpose of Incoterms is to provide a set of international rules for the interpretation of the most commonly used trade terms in foreign trade. Thus, the uncertainties of different interpretations of such terms in different countries can be avoided or at least reduced to a considerable degree.
《國際貿易術語解釋通則》（以下簡稱Incoterms）的宗旨是為國際貿易中最普遍使用的貿易術語提供一套解釋的國際規則，以避免因各國不同解釋而出現的不確定性，或至少在相當程度上減少這種不確定性。
Frequently, parties to a contract are unaware of the different trading practices in their respective countries. This can give rise to misunderstandings, disputes and litigation, with all the waste of time and money that this entails. In order to remedy these problems, the International Chamber of Commerce first published in 1936 a set of international rules for the interpretation of trade terms. These rules were known as “Incoterms 1936”，amendments and additions were later made in 1953, 1967, 1976, 1980, 1990 and presently in 2000 in order to bring the rules in line with current international trade practices.
合同雙方當事人之間互不了解對方國家的貿易習慣的情況時常出現。這就會引起誤解、爭議和訴訟，從而浪費時間和費用。為了解決這些問題，國際商會（ICC）于一九三六年首次公布了一套解釋貿易術語的國際規則，名為Incoterms1936，以后又于一九五三年、一九六七年、一九七六年、一九八〇年和一九九〇年，現在則是二〇〇〇年版本中作出補充和修訂以便使這些規則適應當前國際貿易實踐的發展。
It should be stressed that the scope of Incoterms is limited to matters relating to the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract of sale with respect to the delivery of goods sold (in the sense of “tangible”, not including “intangibles” such computer software).
需要強調的是，Incoterms涵蓋的范圍只限于銷售合同當事人的權利義務中與已售貨物（指“有形的”貨物，不包括“無形的”貨物，如電腦軟件）交貨有關的事項。
It appears that two particular misconceptions about Incoterms are very common. First, Incoterms are frequently misunderstood as applying to the contract of carriage rather than to the contract of sale. Second, they are sometimes wrongly assumed to provide for all the duties which parties may wish to include in a contract of sale.
關于Incoterms，看來有兩個非常普遍的特別誤解。一個是常常認為Incoterms適用于運輸合同而不是銷售合同。第二個是人們有時錯誤的以為它規定了當事人可能希望包含中銷售合同中的所有責任。
As has always been underlined by ICC, Incoterms deal only with the relation between sellers and buyers under the contract of sale, and, moreover, only do so in some very distinct respects.
首先，正如ICC一貫強調的那樣，Incoterms只涉及銷售合同中買賣雙方的關系，而且，只限于一些非常明確的方面。
While it is essential for exporters and importers to consider the very practical relationship between the various contracts needed to perform an international sales transaction – where not only the contract of sale is required, but also contracts of carriage, insurance and financing: - Incoterms relate to only one of these contracts, namely the contract of sale.
對進口商和出口商來講，考慮那些為完成國際銷售所需要的各種合同之間的實際關系當然是非常必要的。完成一筆國際貿易不僅需要銷售合同，而且需要運輸合同、保險合同和融資合同，而Incoterms只涉及其中的一項合同，即銷售合同。
Nevertheless, the parties’ agreement to use a particular Incoterm would necessarily implications for the other contracts. To mention a few examples, a seller having agreed to a CFR - or CIF – contract cannot perform such a contract by any other mode of transport than carriage by sea, since under these he must present a bill of lading or other maritime document to the buyer which is simply not possible if other modes of transport are used. Furthermore, the document required under a documentary credit would necessarily depend upon the means of transport intended to be used.
雖然如此，當雙方當事人同意使用某一個具體的貿易術語時，將不可避免地對其他合同產生影響。舉例說明，賣方同意在合同中使用CFR和CIF術語時，他就只能以海運方式履行合同，因為在這兩個術語下他必須向買方提供提單或其他海運單據，而如果使用其他運輸方式，這些要求是無法滿足的。而且，跟單信用證要求的單據也必須將取決于準備使用的運輸方式。
Second, Incoterms deal with a number of identified obligations imposed on the parties – such as the seller’s obligation to place the goods at the disposal of the buyer or hand them over for carriage or deliver them at destination and with the distribution of risk between the parties in these cases.
其次，Incoterms涉及為當事方設定的若干特定義務，如賣方將貨物交給買方處置，或將貨物交運或在目的地交貨的義務，以及當事雙方之間的風險劃分。
Further, they deal with the obligations to clear the goods for export and import, the packing of the goods, the buyer’s obligation to take delivery as well as the obligation to provide proof that the respective obligations have been duly fulfilled. Although Incoterms are extremely important for the implementation of the contract of sale, a great number of problems which may occur in such a contract are not dealt with at all, like transfer of ownership and other property rights, breaches of contract and the consequences following form such breaches as well as exemptions from liability in certain situations. It should be stressed that Incoterms are not intended to replace such contract terms that are needed for a complete contract of sale either by the incorporation of standard terms or by individually negotiated terms.
另外，Incoterms涉及貨物進口和出口清關、貨物包裝的義務、買方受領貨物的義務，以及提供證明各項義務得到完整履行的義務。盡管Incoterms對于銷售合同的執行有著極為重要的意義，但銷售合同中可能引起的許多問題卻并未涉及，如貨物所有權和其他產權的轉移、違約、違約行為的后果以及某些情況下的免責。需要強調的是，Incoterms無意取代那些完整的銷售合同所需要訂入的標準條款或商定條款。
Generally, Incoterms do not deal with the consequences of breach of contract and any exemptions from liability owing to various impediments. These questions must be resolved by other stipulations in the contract of sale and the applicable law.
通常，Incoterms不涉及違約的后果或由于各種法律障礙導致的免責事項，這些問題必須通過銷售合同中的其他條款和適用的法律來解決。
Incoterms have always been primarily intended for use where goods are sold for delivery across national boundaries: hence, international commercial terms. However, Incoterms are in practice at times also incorporated into contracts for the sale of goods within purely domestic markets. Where Incoterms are so used, the A2 and B2 clauses and any other stipulation of other articles dealing with export and import do, of course, become redundant.
Incoterms一直主要用于跨國境的貨物銷售支付，因此，它是一套國際商業術語。然而，有時Incoterms也被用于純粹國內市場的貨物銷售合同中。在此情況下，Incoterms中的A2、B2以及任何與進出口有關的條款當然就變成多余了。
2. WHY REVISIONS OF INCOTERMS?
2．為什么需要對國際貿易術語解釋通則進行修訂？
The main reason for successive revisions of Incoterms has been the need to adapt them to contemporary commercial practice. Thus, in the 1980 revision the term Free Carrier (now FCA) was introduced in order to deal with the frequent case where the reception point in maritime trade was no longer the traditional FOB point (passing of the ship’s rail) but rather a point on land, prior to loading on board a vessel, where the goods were stowed into a container for subsequent transport by sea or by different means of transport in combination (so called combined or multimodel transport).
連續修訂Incoterms的主要原因是使其適應當代商業的實踐。一九八〇年修訂本引入了貨交承運人（現在為FCA）術語，其目的是為了適應在海上運輸中經常出現的情況，即交貨點不再是傳統的FOB點（貨物越過船舷），而是在將貨物裝船之前運到陸地上的某一點，在那里將貨物裝入集裝箱，以便經由海運或其他運輸方式（即所謂的聯合或多式運輸）繼續運輸。
Further, in the 1990 revision of Incoterms, the clauses dealing with the seller’s obligation to provide proof of delivery permitted a replacement of paper documentation by EDI-messages provided the parties had agreed to communicate electronically. Needless to say, efforts are constantly made to improve upon the drafting and presentation of Incoterms in order to facilitate their practical implementation.
在一九九〇年的修訂本中，涉及賣方提供交貨憑證義務的條款在當事方同意使用電子方式通訊時，允許用電子數據交換（EDI）訊息替代紙面單據。毫無疑問，為了使Incoterms更利于實務操作，其草擬和表述一直都在改進。
3. INCOTERMS 2000
During the process of revision, which has taken about two years, ICC has done its best to invite views and responses to successive drafts from a wide ranging spectrum of world traders, represented as these various sectors are on the national committees through which ICC operates. Indeed, it has been gratifying to see that this revision process has attracted far more reaction from users around the world than any of the previous revisions of Incoterms. The result of this dialogue is Incoterms 2000, a version which when compared with Incoterms 1990 may appear to have effected few changes. It is clear, however, that Incoterms now enjoy world wide recognition and ICC has therefore decided to consolidate upon that recognition and avoid change for its own sake. On the other hand, serious efforts have been made to ensure that the wording used in Incoterms 2000 clearly and accurately reflects trade practice. Moreover, substantive changes have been made in two areas:
在為期兩年的修訂過程中，ICC盡其最大努力通過ICC各國家委員會吸取了各行業國際貿易從業者的意見和建議，完成了修訂稿的多次修改。令人高興的是，在Incoterms的這次修訂中，ICC從全世界使用者得到的反饋意見超過了以往任何一次。ICC與Incoterms的使用者之間交流的結果產生了Incoterms2000這個版本，與1990相比看上去變化很小。原因很明顯，即Incoterms當前已得到世界承認，所以ICC決定鞏固Incoterms在世界范圍內得到的承認，并避免為了變化而變化。另一方面，在修訂過程中，ICC盡量保證Incoterms中的語言清楚準確地反映出國際貿易實務。新的版本在下面兩個方面作出了實質性改變：
• the customs clearance and payment of duty obligations under FAS and DEQ; and
• the loading and unloading obligations under FCA.
• 在FAS和DEQ術語下，辦理清關手續和交納關稅的義務；
• 在FCA術語下裝貨和缷貨的義務。
All changes, whether substantive for formal have been made on the basis of thorough research among users of Incoterms and particular regard has been given to queries received since 1990 by the Panel of Incoterms Experts, set up as an additional service to the users of Incoterms.
無論是實質變化還是在形式變化都是在對Incoterms的使用者廣泛調查的基礎上作出的，而且對一九九〇年以來Incoterms專家小組（專門為Incoterms使用者提供額外服務的機構）收到的咨詢意見給予了充分考慮。
4. INCORPORATION OF INCOTERMS INTO THE CONTRACT OF SALE
4. 在銷售合同中訂入Incoterms
In view of the changes made to Incoterms from time to time, it is important to ensure that where the parties intend to incorporate Incoterms into their contract of sale, an express reference is always made to the current version of Incoterms. This may easily be overlooked when, for example, a reference has been made to an earlier version in standard contract forms or in order forms used by merchants. A failure to refer to the current version may then result in dispute as to whether the parties intended to incorporate that version or an earlier version as a part of their contract. Merchants wishing to use Incoterms 2000 should therefore clearly specify that their contract is governed by “Incoterms 2000”.
鑒于Incoterms不時修訂，所以，如果合同當事方意圖在合同中訂入時，清楚地指明所引用的Incoterms版本是很重要的。人們很容易忽略這一點，例如在標準合同或訂貨單中引用了早期版本時，未能引用最新版本，可能會對當事方的意圖是在合同中引用新版本還是早期版本引起糾紛。希望使用Incoterms2000的商人，應在合同中明確規定該合同受Incoterms2000約束。
5. THE STRUCTURE OF INCOTERMS
5. Incoterms2000的結構
In 1990, for ease of understanding, the terms were grouped in four basically different categories: namely starting with the term whereby the seller only makes the goods available to the buyer at the seller’s own premises (the “E” term Ex works); followed by the second group whereby the seller is called upon to deliver the goods to a carrier appointed by the buyer (the “F” terms FCA, FAS and FOB); continuing with the “C” terms where the seller has to contract for carriage, but without assuming that risk of loss of or damage to the goods or additional costs due to events occurring after shipment and dispatch (CFR, CIF, CPT and CIP); and, finally, the “D” terms whereby the seller has to bear all costs and risks needed to bring the goods to the place of destination (DAF, DES, DEQ, DDU and DDP). The following chart sets out this classification of the trade terms.
一九九〇年，為了便于理解，將所有的術語分為四個基本不同的類型。第一組為“E組”（EX WORKS），指賣方僅在自己的地點為買方準備妥貨物；第二組為“F組”（FCA、FAS和FOB），指賣方須將貨物交至買方指定的承運人；第三組“C組”（CFR、CIF和CIP），指賣方須訂立運輸合同，但對貨物滅失或損壞的風險以及裝船和啟運后發生意外所發生的額外費用，賣方不承擔責任；第四組“D組”（DAF、DES、DEQ、DDU和DDP），指賣方須承擔把貨物交至目的國所需的全部費用和風險。下表反映了這種分類方法：
Group E Departure
E組 發貨
EXW Ex Works
工廠交貨（……指定地點）
Group F Main carriage unpaid
F組 主要運費未付
FCA Free Carrier (… named place)
FCA 貨交承運人（……指定地點）
FAS Free Alongside Ship (… named port of shipment)
FAS 船邊交貨（……指定裝運港）
FOB Free On Board (… named port of shipment)
FOB 船上交貨（……指定裝運港）
Group C Main carriage paid
C組 主要運費已付
CFR Cost and Freight (… named port of destination)
CFR 成本加運費（……指定目的港）
CIF Cost Insurance and Freight (… named port of destination)
CIF 成本、保險費加運費（……指定目的港）
CPT Carriage Paid To (… named place of destination)
CPT 運費付至（……指定目的地）
CIP Carriage and Insurance Paid To (… named place of destination)
CIP 運費、保險費付至（……指定目的地）
Group D Arrival
D組 到達
DAF Delivered At Frontier (…named place)
DAF 邊境交貨（……指定地點）
DES Delivered Ex Ship (… named port of destination)
DES 目的港船上交貨（……指定目的港）
DEQ Delivered Ex Quay (… named port of destination)
DEQ 目的港碼頭交貨（……指定目的港）
DDU Delivered Duty Unpaid (… named place of destination)
DDU 未完稅交貨（……指定目的地）
DDP Delivered Duty Paid (… named place of destination)
DDP 完稅交貨（……指定目的地）
Further, under all terms, as in Incoterms 1990, the respective obligations of the parties have been grouped under 10 headings where each heading on the seller’s side “mirrors”, the position of the buyer with respect to the same subject matter.
與Incoterms一九九〇相同，所有術語下當事人各自的義務均用十個項目列出，賣方在每一項目中的地位“對應”了買方在同一項目中相應的地位。
6. TERMINOLOGY
6. 用語說明
While drafting Incoterms 2000, considerable efforts have been make to achieve as much consistency as possible and desirable with respect to the various expressions used throughout the thirteen terms. Thus, the use if different expressions intended to convey the same meaning has been avoided. Also, whenever possible, the same expressions as appear in the 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) have been used.
在起草Incoterms 2000過程中，工作小組力求使這十三個術語中的不同表述盡可能地做到連貫一致，這樣就避免了用不同表述表達相同的意義。而且，只要可能，均使用了一九八〇年《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》中的表述。
“Shipper”
“托運人”（Shipper）
In some cases it has been necessary to use the same term to express two different meanings simply because there has been no suitable alternative. Traders will be familiar with this difficulty both in the context of contracts of sale and also of contracts of carriage. Thus, for example, the term “shipper” signifies both the person handing over the goods for carriage and the person who makes the contract with the carrier: however, these two “shippers” may be different persons, for example under a FOB contract where the seller would hand over the goods for carriage and the buyer would make the contract with the carrier.
在一些情況下，需要用同一個詞表示兩個不同的意思，這只是由于無法找到合適的替代詞的緣故。商人們在銷售合同和運輸合同中經常遇到這種困難。例如，“托運人”一詞既表示將貨物交付運輸的人，又表示與承運人訂立合同的人，而這兩個“托運人”可能是不同的人，如在FOB合同中，賣方將貨物交付運輸，而買方則與承運人訂立運輸合同。
“Delivery”
“交貨”（delivery）
It is particularly important to note that the term “delivery is used in two different senses in Incoterms. First, it is used to determine when the seller has fulfilled his delivery obligation which is specified in the A4 clauses throughout Incoterms. Second, the term “delivery” is also used in the context of the buyer’s obligation to take or accept delivery of the goods, an obligation which appears in the B4 clauses throughout Incoterms. Used in this second context, the word “delivery” means first that the buyer “accepts” the very nature of the “C” terms, namely that the seller fulfils his obligations upon the shipment of the goods and, second that the buyer is obliged to receive the goods. This latter obligation is important to as to avoid unnecessary charges for storage of the goods until they have been collected by the buyer. Thus, for example under CFR and CIF contracts, the buyer is bound to accept delivery of the goods and to receive them from the carrier and if the buyer fails to do so, he may become liable to pay damages to the seller who has made the contract of carriage with the carrier or, alternatively, the buyer might have to pay demurrage charges resting upon the goods in order to obtain the carrier’s release of the goods to him. When it is said in this context that the buyer must “accept delivery”, this does not mean that the buyer has accepted the goods as conforming with the contract of sale, buy only that he has accepted that the seller has performed his obligation to hand the goods over for carriage in accordance with the contract of carriage which he has to make under the A3 a) clauses of the “C”-terms. So, if the buyer upon receipt of the goods at destination were to find that the goods did not conform to the stipulations in the contract of sale, he would be able to use any remedies which the contract of sale and the applicable law gave him against the seller, matters which, as has already been mentioned, lie entirely outside the scope of Incoterms.
需要特別注意的是，“交貨”這個詞在Incoterms中有兩種不同含義。首先，“交貨”一詞被用來判斷賣方何時完成了其交貨義務，這規定在所有Incoterms的A4條款中。其次，“交貨”也被用于買方受領或接受貨物的義務，這規定在所有Incoterms的B4條款中。用于這第二種含義時，“交貨”首先意味著買方“接受”C組術語的基本宗旨，即賣方在將貨物交運時即完成其義務，其次，“交運”一詞還意味著買方有受領貨物的義務。為避免因買方提取貨物前支付不必要的貯藏費，這后一種義務是很重要的。例如，在CFR和CIF術語的合同中，買方有義務接受貨物并從承運人處領取貨物，若買方未履行該義務，就可能對與承運人訂立運輸合同的賣方損失承擔賠償責任，或者向承運人支付貨物滯期費以使承運人放貨。在這方面，說買方必須“受領貨物”并不表示買方將其作為符合銷售合同而接受貨物，而只是指買方接受這一事實，即賣方按C組術語A3a)款訂立運輸合同，完成了將貨物交付運輸的義務。如果買方在目的地收到貨物后，發現貨物與銷售合同規定不符，買方可使用銷售合同和適用的法律給予的任何一種補救辦法向賣方尋求補償。如前所述，此項事宜已完全超出Incoterms的適用范圍。
Where appropriate, Incoterms 2000 have used the expression “placing the goods at the disposal of” the buyer when the goods are made available to the buyer at a particular place. This expression is intended to bear the same meaning as that of the phrase “landing over the goods” used in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.
當貨物在某一特定地點可交給買方時，Incoterms2000在適當之處使用了“將貨物交給買方處置”的表述。這種表述與《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》中“將貨物交與”的表述含義相同。
“Usual”
通常（usual）
The word “usual” appears in several terms, for example in EXW with respect to the time of delivery (A4) and in the “C” terms with respect to the documents which the seller is obliged to provide and the contract of carriage which the seller must procure (A8, A3). It can, of course, be difficult to tell precisely what the word “usual” means, however, in many cases, it is possible to identify what persons in the trade usually do and this practice will then be the guiding light. In this sense, the word “usual” is rather more helpful than the word “reasonable” which requires an assessment not against the world of practice but against the more difficult principle of good faith and fair dealing. In some circumstances it may well be necessary to decide what is “reasonable”. However, for the reasons given, in Incoterms the word “usual” has been generally preferred to the word “reasonable”.
“通常”一詞在很多術語中出現，如在EXW術語中表示交貨時間的條款（A4）中，在C組術語下關于賣方必須提供的單據和必須訂立的運輸合同的條款中（A8、A3）。當然說清楚“通常”的含義并非易事，然而在很多情況下，是有可能認定該行業內人士通常是如何行事的，這種行事慣例即可作為參照。在此意義上，“通常”這個詞比“合理的”一詞更有幫助。“合理的”要求的不是根據日常實踐的評估，而要根據更難界定的善意和公平交易原則的評估。在一些情況下，可能還是需要判斷什么是“合理的”。盡管如此，由于上述原因，在Incoterms中，一般使用“通常”一詞而不使用“合理的”一詞。
“Charges”
“費用”（charges）
With respect to the obligation to clear goods for import it is important to determine what is meant by “charges” which must be paid upon import of the goods. In Incoterms 1990 the expression “official charges payable upon exportation and importation of the goods” was used in DDP A6. In Incoterms 2000 DDP A6 the word “official” has been deleted, the reason being that this word gave rise to some uncertainty when determining whether the charge was “official” or not. No change of substantive meaning was intended through this deletion. The “charges” which must be paid only concern such charges as are a necessary consequence of the import as such and which thus have to be paid according to the applicable import regulations. Any additional charges levied by private parties in connection with the import are not to be included in these charges, such as charges for storage unrelated to the clearance obligation. However, the performance of that obligation may well result in some costs to customs brokers or freight forwarders if the party bearing the obligation does not do the work himself.
在涉及到辦理貨物進口手續的義務時，判斷貨物進口時要支付的“費用”包括哪些內容是很重要的。在Incoterms l990 中，DDP 術語A6 使用的是“在出口和進口中所需交納的官方費用”。而在Incoterms 2000中，刪去了“官方”一詞，其原因是當決定某項收費是否是“官方”收費時，“官方”一詞會造成某些不確定性。雖然刪去了“官方”一詞，但本意并非改變這一條款的實質意義。必須支付的“費用”僅涉及進口必然發生并按適用的進口管理規定必須支付的費用。其他任何由私人機構在貨物進口時收取的費用不應包括在“費用”中，如與清關義務無關的貯存費。然而，若承擔義務的一方非親自履行該義務時，則履行此項義務可能發生付給海關經紀人或運輸行(freight forwarders)的一些費用。
“Ports”, “places” and “premises”
“港口”(port)、“地點”(place)、“點”(point)和“所在地”(premise)
So far as concerns the place at which the goods are to be delivered, different expressions are used in Incoterms. In the terms intended to be used exclusively for carriage of goods by sea, such as FAS, FOB, CIF, DES and DEQ, the expressions “port of shipment” and “port of destination” have been used. In all other cases the word “place” has been used. In some cases, it has been deemed necessary also to indicate a “point” within the port or place as it may be important for the seller to know not only that the goods should be delivered in a particular area like a city but also where within that area the goods should be placed at the disposal of the buyer. Contracts of sale would frequently lack information in this respect and Incoterms therefore stipulate that if no specific point has been agreed within the named place, and if there are several points available, the seller may select the point which best suits his purposes (as an example see FCA A4). Where the delivery point is the seller’s place the expression “the seller’s premises” (FCA A4) has been used.
在交貨地點的問題上，Incoterms 中使用了不同的表達方法。只適用于海運的術語，如FAS、FOB、CFR、CIF、DES和DEQ，使用了“裝運港”和“目的港”兩種表述。在所有其他的術語中使用的是“地點”(place)—詞。在某些場合，有必要指明在“港口”和“地點”(place)內的某“點”(point)，因為賣方不僅需要知道他要把貨物交至一個特定地區，例如某個城市，而且也要知道在該地區的什么點將貨物交給買方處置。銷售合同經常缺少這一方面的信息，于是，Incoterms 規定如果在指定地點沒有約定交貨點，并且有幾個點可以選擇，賣方可選擇對其最有利的點交貨(見FCA術語中的A4 條款)。當交貨點是賣方的“地點”時，則使用了“賣方所在地”(FCA 術語中的A4 條款)。
“Ship” and “vessel”
“船只”(ship和vessel)
In the terms intended to be used for carriage of goods by sea, the expressions “ship” and “vessel” are used as synonyms. Needless to say, the term “ship” would have to be used when it is an ingredient in the trade term itself such as if “free alongside ship” (FAS) and “delivery ex ship” (DES). Also, in view of the traditional use of the expression “passed the ship’s rail” in FOB, the word “ship” has had to be used in that connection.
在適用海上運輸貨物的術語中，“ship”和“vessel”被當做同義詞使用。無須說明，當“ship”作為貿易術語的組成部分時，如“船邊交貨(FAS)”和“目的港船上交貨(DES)”，必然要使用“ship”一詞。同樣，由于FOB 術語中傳統上使用“越過船舷”的表述，因而必然會將“ship”一詞用于相關內容。
“Checking” and “inspection”
“查對”(checking)和“檢驗”(inspection)
In the A9 and B9 clause of Incoterms the headings “checking packaging and marking” and “inspection of the goods” respectively have been used. Although the words “checking” and “inspection” are synonyms, it has been deemed appropriate to use the former word with respect to the seller’s delivery obligation under A4 and to reserve the latter for the particular case when a “pre-shipment inspection” is performed, since such inspection normally is only required when the buyer or the authorities of the export or import country want to ensure that the goods conform with contractual or official stipulations before they are shipped.
在Incorms 中，A9 和B9 條款分別使用“查對、包裝和標記”和“貨物檢驗”作為條款標題。盡管“checking”和“inspection”是同義詞，但是人們認為這樣來區別使用比較合適：在涉及賣方按A4 交貨的義務時使用查對(checking)，而后者則用于一些特別情況，即進行“裝運前檢驗”，因為在通常情況下只有當買方或貨物出口或進口國當局希望在貨物裝運前保證貨物符合合同或官方規定時才要求進行“檢驗”。
7. THE SELLER’S DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS
7．賣方的交貨義務
Incoterms focus on the seller’s delivery obligation. The precise distribution of functions and costs in connection with the seller’s delivery of the goods would normally not cause problems where the parties have a continuing commercial relationship. They would then establish a practice between themselves (“course of dealing) which they would follow in subsequent dealings in the same manner as they have done earlier. However, if a new commercial relationship is established or if a contract is made through the medium of brokers-as is common in the sale of commodities-, one would have to apply the stipulations of the contract of sale and, whenever Incoterms 2000 have been incorporated into that contract, apply the division of functions, costs and risks following therefrom.
Incoterms 將重點放在賣方的交貨義務上。對與賣方交貨有關聯的責任和費用的準確分配在各當事方有持續商業關系的情況下一般不會有什么問題。他們會在相互之間確立一種習慣做法(course of dealing)，而且他們會按這種方式處理今后的交易。然而，當建立一種新的商業關系或通過經紀人的中介訂立合同(這在農礦產品銷售中是普遍現象)時，當事人一定要按合同規定辦事，在將Incoterms 2000 訂入合同時，按照Incoterms 2000 的規定劃分責任、費用和風險。
It would, of course, have been desirable if Incoterms could specify in as detailed a manner as possible the duties of the parties in connection with the delivery of the goods. Compared with Incoterms 1990, further efforts have been made in this respect in some specified instances (see for example FCA A4). But it has not been possible to avoid reference to customs of the trade in FAS and FOB A4 (“in the manner customary at the port”), the reason being that particularly in commodity trade the exact manner in which the goods are delivered for carriage in FAS and FOB contracts vary in the different sea ports.
當然，人們希望Incoterms 能夠盡可能細致地劃分與交貨有關的各當事方的義務。與Incoterms 1990 相比，Incoterms 2000 在某些具體情況下在這方面作了進一步努力(見FCA 術語中A4 條款)。但在FAS 和FOB A4中，不可避免地要援用行業慣例(“按港口的習慣方式”)，其原因是，在FAS 或FOB 合同下，將貨物，尤其是農礦產品交運的具體做法在不同的海港是不一樣的。
8. PASSING OF RISKS AND COSTS RELATING TO THE GOODS.
8. 與貨物有關的風險和費用的轉移
The risk of loss of or damage to the goods, as well as the obligation to bear the costs relating to the goods, passes from the seller to the buyer when the seller has fulfilled his obligation to deliver the goods. Since the buyer should not be given the possibility to delay the passing of the risk and costs, all terms stipulate that the passing of risk and costs may occur even before delivery, if the buyer does not take delivery as agreed or fails to give such instructions (with respect to time for shipment and/or place for delivery) as the seller may require in order to fulfil his obligation to deliver the goods. It is a requirement for such premature passing of risk and costs that the goods have been identified as intended for the buyer or, as is stipulated in the terms, set aside for him (appropriation).
當賣方交貨后，貨物滅失或損壞的風險，以及負擔與貨物有關的費用的義務便從賣方轉移到買方。由于不應給予買方任何拖延風險和費用轉移的機會，因此，所有術語都作出規定，當買方沒有按約定受領貨物或沒有給予賣方完成交貨義務的必要指示 (有關裝船時間和／或交貨地點)時，風險和費用甚至在交貨之前就可轉移。這種提前轉移風險和費用的條件就是貨物已指明為為買方準備的，或如術語所規定，已為買方“劃
出”。
This requirement is particularly important under EXW, since under all other terms the goods would normally have been identified as intended for the buyer when measures have been taken for their shipment or dispatch (“F” and “C” terms) or their delivery at destination (“D terms). In exceptional cases, however, the goods may have been sent from the seller in bulk without identification of the quantity for each buyer and, if so, passing of risk and cost does not occur before the goods have been appropriated as aforesaid (cf. also article 69.3 of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods).
在EXW 術語下，這一點尤為重要，因為在所有其他術語下，當采取措施為交運、發送貨物(F組和C組)或在目的地交貨做準備時(D組)，一般即可認為這批貨物是專門為買方準備的。但在一些例外場合，如當賣方散裝發運貨物且未確定每一個買方的數量時，則在貨物按前述規定特定化前，風險和費用不發生轉移(參見《一九八0 年聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》第六十九條第三項)。
9. THE TERMS
9. 術語
9.1. The “E” term is the term in which the seller’s obligation is at its minimum: the seller has to do no more than place the goods at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed place - usually at the seller’s own premises. On the other hand, as a matter of practical reality, the seller would frequently assist the buyer in loading the goods on the latter’s collecting vehicle. Although EXW would better reflect this if the seller’s obligation were to be extended so as to include loading, it was thought desirable to retain the traditional principle of the seller’s minimum obligation under EXW so that it could be used for cases where the seller does not wish to assume any obligation whatsoever with respect to the loading of the goods. If the buyer wants the seller to do more, this should be made clear in the contract of sale.
9.1 E組術語下賣方的義務最小：賣方只要將貨物在約定地點，通常是在賣方所在地，交給買方處置即可。但是，另一方面，在實務中，賣方經常會幫助買方將貨物裝至買方的運輸工具上。如果將賣方的義務擴大到包括裝貨，那么EXW 術語將更好地反應這一實務。但是，人們認為理想的是仍然保留EXW 下賣方義務最小的傳統原則，其目的是適用于那些賣方不愿意承擔任何裝貨義務的情況。若買方希望賣方負擔更多的義務，應在銷售合同中寫明。
9.2. The “F” terms require the seller to deliver the goods for carriage as instructed by the buyer. The point at which the parties intend delivery to occur in the FCA term has caused difficulty because of the wide variety of circumstances which may surround contracts covered by this term. Thus, the goods may be loaded on a collecting vehicle sent by the buyer to pick them up at the seller’s premises; alternatively, the goods may need to be unloaded from a vehicle sent by the seller to deliver the goods at a terminal named by the buyer. Incoterms 2000 take account of these alternatives by stipulating that, when the place named in the contract as the place of delivery is the seller’s premises, delivery is complete when the goods are loaded on the buyer’s collecting vehicle and, in other cases, delivery is complete when the goods are placed at the disposal of the buyer not unloaded from the seller’s vehicle. The variations mentioned for different modes of transport in FCA A4 of Incoterms 1990 are not repeated in Incoterms 2000.
9.2 F組術語要求賣方按照買方的指示將貨物交運。在FCA 術語下，當事各方所希望的交貨點造成了困難，其原因是此術語所涉及的合同可能會遇到各式各樣的情況。貨物可能裝上買方派往賣方所在地提取貨物的車輛；或者貨物也許需要從賣方派往買方指定的交貨地點的車輛上卸下。Incoterms 2000 考慮到了上述可能，規定若合同中指定交貨地點是賣方所在地，當貨物裝上買方的裝貨車輛時即完成交貨，在其他情況下，當貨物在賣方的車輛上尚未卸貨而交給買方處置時，即完成交貨。Incoterms 1990FCA術語A4條款中提到的各種不同運輸方式在Incoterms 2000 中未再重復。
The delivery point under FOB, which is the same under CFR and CIF, has been left unchanged in Incoterms 2000 in spite of a considerable debate. Although the notion under FOB to deliver the goods “across the ship’s rail” nowadays may seem inappropriate in many cases, it is nevertheless understood by merchants and applied in a manner which takes account of the goods and the available loading facilities. It was felt that a change of the FOB-point would create unnecessary confusion, particularly with respect to sale of commodities carried by sea typically under charter parties.
FOB 術語中的交貨點與CFR 和CIF 術語中的相同，盡管對此有很多爭論，在Incoterms 2000 中仍未做改動。雖然FOB 術語中的“越過船舷”交貨的原則在當前許多情況下已不合適了，但是既然已為商人們所深知，并根據貨物的特點和可用的裝載設備的具體情況加以運用，更改FOB 的交貨點可能會造成不必要的混亂，尤其對于按租船合同進行農礦產品運輸來說，更是如此。
Unfortunately, the word “FOB” is used by some merchants merely to indicate any point of delivery, such as “FOB factory”, “FOB plant”, “FOB Ex seller’s works” or other inland points, thereby neglecting what the abbreviation means: Free On Board. It remains the case that such use of “FOB” tends to create confusion and should be avoided.
不幸的是，FOB術語被一些商人用來表示“任何”交貨點，如“FOB工廠”，“FOB工場”，“FOB賣方工廠”或其他內陸地點，這樣做就失去了FOB術語是“Free on Board”的縮寫的意義了。如此使用FOB術語會造成混亂，應該避免。
There is an important change of FAS relating to the obligation to clear the goods for export, since it appears to be the most common practice to put this duty on the seller rather than on the buyer. In order to ensure that this change is duly noted it has been marked with capital letters in the preamble of FAS.
FAS 術語辦理貨物出口手續的義務出現了重要的變化，因為看來最普遍的做法是由賣方而不是由買方承擔這項義務。為了保證這一變化得到足夠的重視，在FAS 序言中使用了黑體字來標出。
9.3. The “C” terms require the seller to contract for carriage on usual terms at his own expense. Therefore, a point up to which he would have to pay transport costs must necessarily be indicated after the respective “C” term. Under the CIF and CIP terms the seller also has to take out insurance and bear the insurance cost. Since the point for the division of costs is fixed at a point in the country of destination, the “C” terms are frequently mistakenly believed to be arrival contracts, in which the seller would bear all risks and costs until the goods have actually arrived at the agreed point.
9.3 C 組術語要求賣方按照通常條件自付費用訂立運輸合同。因此，賣方支付運費運到的地點，必須在C組每一項術語后指明。按照CIF和CIP術語，賣方還要負責辦理保險和負擔保險費用。由于費用劃分地點確定為目的地國家的某個點，因而C組術語往往被誤認為是到貨合同，在到貨合同中，賣方要承擔貨物實際被運到約定地點之前的全部風險和費用。
However, it must be stressed that the “C” terms are of the same nature as the “F” terms in that the seller fulfils the contract in the country of shipment or dispatch. Thus, the contracts of sale under the “C” terms, like the contracts under the “F” terms, fall within the category of shipment contracts.
在此必須強調，C組術語與F組術語具有相同性質的一點，就在于賣方是在裝運國或發貨國完成合同履行。因此，C組術語的銷售合同和F組術語的銷售合同一樣，屬于裝運合同。
It is in the nature of shipment contracts that, while the seller is bound to pay the normal transport cost for the carriage of the goods by a usual route and in a customary manner to the agreed place, the risk of loss of or damage to the goods, as well as additional costs resulting from events occurring after the goods having been appropriately delivered for carriage, fall upon the buyer. Hence, the “C” terms are distinguishable from all other terms in that they contain two “critical” points, one indicating the point to which the seller is bound to arrange and bear the costs of a contract of carriage and another one for the allocation of risk. For this reason, the greatest caution must be observed when adding obligations of the seller to the “C” terms which seek to extend the seller’s responsibility beyond the aforementioned “critical” point for the allocation of risk. It is of the very essence of the “C” terms that the seller is relieved of any further risk and cost after he has duly fulfilled his contract by contracting for carriage and handing over the goods to the carrier and by providing for insurance under the CIF and CIP terms.
裝運合同的特點是，賣方要支付將貨物按照慣常航線和習慣方式運至約定地點所需的通常運輸費用，而貨物滅失或損壞的風險以及在貨物以適當方式交付運輸之后發生意外而發生的額外費用則應由買方承擔。因此，C組術語包含兩個區別于其他所有術語的“分界點”：一是指明賣方必須安排運輸，并承擔其費用的點；另一點是風險的劃分點。為此，凡增加賣方在C組術語下的義務而擴大賣方的責任超出上述風險劃分的“分界點”時，應特別小心。按照CIF和CAP術語，賣方在履行其合同義務，訂立運輸合同，將貨物交付承運人并辦理保險后，免除賣方任何進一步風險和費用，這正是C 組術語的實質所在。
The essential nature of the “C” terms as shipment contract is also illustrated by the common use of documentary credits as the preferred mode of payment used in such terms. Where it is agreed by the parties to the sale contract that the seller will be paid by presenting the agreed shipping documents to a bank under a documentary credit, it would be quite contrary to the central purpose of the documentary credit for the seller to bear further risks and costs after the moment when payment has been made under documentary credits or otherwise upon shipment and dispatch of the goods. Of course, the seller would have to bear the cost of the contract of carriage irrespective of whether freight is pre-paid upon shipment or is payable at destination (freight collect); however, additional costs which may result from events occurring subsequent to shipment and dispatch are necessarily for the account of the buyer.
C 組術語作為裝運合同的本質也通過在此組術語下廣泛使用跟單信用證作為人們喜用的付款方式顯現出來。若銷售合同的當事方同意，賣方憑跟單信用證向銀行提交約定的運輸單據后收取貨款，則如果賣方在按照跟單信用證得到貨款或在貨物起運或發貨后以其他方式得到貨款之后，仍承擔進一步的風險和費用，就與跟單信用證的中心目的背道而馳了。當然，不管運費在貨物起運之前已經預付還是在目的地支付(運費到付)，賣方必須支付運輸合同的費用；然而，在貨物裝船或發貨后的事件所發生的額外費用必須由買方承擔。
If the seller has to provide a contract of carriage which involves payment of duties, taxes and other charges, such costs will, of course, fall upon the seller to the extent that they are for his account under that contract. This is now explicitly set forth in the A6 clause of all “C” terms.
如果賣方需要提供包括交納關稅、稅款和其他費用在內的運輸合同，那么，在合同約定這些費用由賣方支付時，當然應由賣方支付。這一點在所有C 組術語的A6 條款中已作出明確規定。
If it is customary to procure several contracts of carriage involving transhipment of the goods at intermediate places in order to reach the agreed destination, the seller would have to pay all these costs, including any costs incurred when the goods are transhipped from one means of conveyance to the other. If, however, the carrier exercised his rights under a transhipment or similar clause in order to avoid unexpected hindrances (such as ice, congestion, labour disturbances, government orders, war or warlike operations) then any additional cost resulting therefrom would be for the account of the buyer, since the seller’s obligation is limited to procuring the usual contract of carriage.
若按習慣要訂立幾份運輸合同，以便貨物中途轉運以抵達約定的目的地，則賣方必須支付所有的費用，包括貨物從一種運輸工具轉到另一種運輸工具而發生的費用。但是，若承運人依據轉運合同或—類似條款的規定行使其權利以避免意外的阻礙 (例如，冰塊、堵塞、勞工動亂、政府禁令、戰爭或類似戰爭行為)，則由此發生的所有額外費用應由買方承擔，因為賣方的義務只限于訂立通常的運輸合同。
It happens quite often that the parties to the contract of sale wish to clarify the extent to which the seller should procure a contract of carriage including the costs of discharge. Since such costs are normally covered by the freight when the goods are carried by regular shipping lines, the contract of sale will frequently stipulate that the goods are to be so carried or at least that they are to be carried under “liner terms”. In other cases, the word “landed” is added after CFR or CIF. However, it is advisable not to use abbreviations added to the “C” terms unless, in the relevant trade, the meaning of the abbreviations is clearly understood and accepted by the contracting parties or under any applicable law or custom of the trade.
銷售合同的當事人往往希望明確賣方應在什么程度內訂立運輸合同，包括卸貨費用由誰負擔。由于當貨物由通常的班輪運輸時，這些費用一般包括在運費之內，因此，銷售合同經常規定，貨物必須由班輪運輸或至少按“班輪條件”運輸。有時在CFR或CIF術語后加上“卸到岸上(Landed)”。然而，最好不要在C組術語后使用縮寫語，除非在有關行業中，該縮寫語為合同當事人或適用的法律或行業慣例所明確理解和接受。
In particular, the seller should not and indeed could not, without changing the very nature of the “C” terms undertake any obligation with respect to the arrival of the goods at destination, since the risk of any delay during the carriage is borne by the buyer. Thus, any obligation with respect to time must necessarily refer to the place of shipment or dispatch, for example, “shipment (dispatch) not later than …”. An agreement for example, “CFR Hamburg not later that …” is really a misnomer and thus open to different possible interpretations. The parties could be taken to have meant either that the goods must actually arrive at Hamburg at the specified date, in which case the contract is not a shipment contract but an arrival contract or, alternatively, that the seller must ship the goods at such a time that they would normally arrive at Hamburg before the specified date unless the carriage would have been delayed because of unforeseen events.
具體而言，賣方不應當(在不改變C 組術語本質的情況下，實際上也不能夠)承擔任何保證貨物抵達目的地的義務，因為在運輸途中任何遲延的風險應由買方承擔。因此，涉及時間的任何義務必須表明裝船地或發貨地，例如“裝運(發貨)不遲于……”。像“CFR 漢堡不遲于……”這樣的一份協議屬于用詞不當，并會引起不同的解釋。當事人的意思可能被認為是貨物必須在規定的日期抵達漢堡，在這種情況下該合同不是裝運合同而是到貨合同；另一種可能的理解是，賣方發運貨物的時間必須是使其在通常情況下能在規定的時間前抵達漢堡，除非發生意外事件耽誤運輸。
It happens in commodity trades that goods are brought while they are at sea and that, in such cases, the word “afloat” is added after the trade term. Since the risk of loss of or damage to the goods would then, under the CFR and CIF terms, have passed from the seller to the buyer, difficulties of interpretation might arise. One possibility would be to maintain the ordinary meaning of the CFR and CIF terms with respect to the allocation of risk between seller and buyer, namely that risk passes on shipment: this would mean that the buyer might have to assume the consequences of events having already occurred at the time when the contract of sale enters into force. The other possibility would be to let the passing of the risk coincide with the time when the contract of sale is concluded. The former possibility might well be practical, since it is usually impossible to ascertain the condition of the goods while they are being carried. For this reason the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods article 68 stipulates that, “If the circumstances so indicate, the risk is assumed by the buyer from the time the goods were handed over to the carrier who issued the documents embodying the contract of carriage”. There is, however, an exception to this rule when “the seller knew or ought to have known that the goods had been lost or damaged and did not disclose this to the buyer”. Thus, the interpretation of a CFR or CIF term with the addition of the word “afloat” will depend upon the law applicable to the contract of sale. The parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law and any solution which might follow therefrom. In case of doubt, the parties are advised to clarify the matter in their contract.
在農礦產品貿易中，有時購買的貨物正在海上運輸途中，在這種情況下，貿易術語后應加上“在途(afloat)”一詞。根據CFR和CIF術語，貨物的滅失或損壞的風險這時已從賣方轉移到買方，這就可能引起解釋上的困難。一種可能是，維持CFR和CIF術語有關買賣雙方風險劃分的通常含義，即風險在裝運時轉移。這意味著買方也許不得不承擔銷售合同生效時已發生的事件的后果。另一種可能性是讓風險的轉移和合同訂立的時間相一致。前一種可能性也許更切合實際，因為確定正在運輸途中貨物的狀況往往是不可能的。鑒于這個原因，《一九八0 年聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》第六十八條規定“如果情況表明有此需要，從貨物交付給簽發體現運輸合同的單據的承運人時起，風險就由買方承擔”，但是有一例外，即當“賣方知道或理應知道貨物已經滅失或損壞，而不將這一事實告知買方”時。因此，CFR或CIF術語后加上“在途”一詞的解釋應取決于銷售合同適用的法律。建議當事人弄清適用的法律及其可能導致的解決方法。如有疑問，當事人應在合同中加以明確規定。
In practice, the parties frequently continue to use the traditional expression c & f (Or C and F, C + F). Nevertheless, in most cases it would appear that they regard these expressions as equivalent to CFR. In order to avoid difficulties of interpreting their contract the parties should use the correct Incoterms which is CFR, the only world wide accepted standard abbreviation for the term “Cost and Freight (… named port of destination)”.
在實務中，交易方繼續頻繁使用C&F(或C and F，C+F)這樣傳統的術語。然而，在絕大多數情況下，交易方視這些傳統術語等同于CFR。為了避免解釋合同時的困難，交易方應使用CFR術語，因為CFR 是全球廣泛接受的“成本加運費(……指定目的港)”術語的惟一的縮寫。
CFR and CIF in A8 of Incoterms 1990 obliged the seller to provide a copy of the charter party whenever his transport document (usually the bill of lading) contained a reference to the charter party, for example, by the frequent notation “all other term and conditions as per charter party”. Although, of course, a contracting party should always be able to ascertain all terms of his contract preferably at the time of the conclusion of the contract, it appears that the practice to provide the charter party as aforesaid has created problems particularly in connection with documentary credit transactions. The obligation of the seller under CFR and CIF to provide a copy of the charter party together with other transport documents has been deleted in Incoterms 2000.
在Incoterms l990 中，CFR 和CIF 的A8條款要求：只要賣方提供的運輸單據(通常是提單)中援引了租船合同，例如，最常用的表達方式“所有其他條款(terms)和條件(conditions)均按租船合同”，這時賣方就有義務提供租船合同的副本。盡管簽約人應該總是能夠確知合同中所有條款的內容(最好是在訂立合同時)，但是這種提供租船合同的做法帶來了一些問題，尤其是在跟單信用證業務中。所以，在Incoterms 2000 中，刪去了CFR和CIF術語下賣方要隨運輸單據提供租船合同副本的義務。
Although the A8 clauses of Incoterms seek to ensure that the seller provides the buyer with “proof of delivery”, it should be stressed that the seller fulfils that requirement when he provides the “usual” proof. Under CPT and CIP it would be the “usual transport document” and under CFR and CIF a bill of lading or a sea waybill. The transport documents must be “clean”, meaning that they must not contain clauses or notations expressly declaring a defective condition of the goods and/or the packaging. If such clauses or notations appear in the document, it is regarded as “unclean” and would then not be accepted by banks in the documentary credit transactions. However, it should be noted that a transport document even without such clauses or notations would usually not provide the buyer with incontrovertible proof as against the carrier that the goods were shipped in conformity with the stipulations of the contract of sale. Usually, the carrier would, in standardized text on the front page of the transport document, refuse to accept responsibility for information with respect to the goods by indicating that the particulars inserted in the transport document constitute the shipper’s declarations and therefore that the information is only “said to be” as inserted in the document. Under most applicable laws and principles, the earner must at least use reasonable means of checking the correctness of the information and his failure to do so may make him liable to the consignee. However, in container trade, the carrier’s means of checking the contents in the container would not exist unless he himself was responsible for stowing the container.
雖然Incoterms 中A8 條款的目的在于保證賣方向買方提供“交貨憑證”，但應該指出，這里強調的是只要賣方提供了“通常”的憑證，賣方就完成了這項義務。在CPT 和CIP 術語下，賣方要提供“通常的運輸單據”，在CFR 和CIF 術語下，賣方要提供提單或海運單，運輸單據必須是“清潔的”，即運輸單據上不能出現聲明貨物和／或其包裝有與合同不符的條款或批注。若單據中出現這樣的條款或批注，那么這個單據就被認為是“不清潔的”，而在跟單信用證交易中則會被銀行拒收。但是，一份運輸單據，即使上面沒有這樣的條款或批注，對買方來說通常也不能成為對抗承運人的無可質疑的證據，證明貨物在裝運時是符合銷售合同內容的。一般情況下，承運人會在運輸單據的正面以標準文句指明，在運輸單據中加入的細節 (particulars)是托運人的聲明，因此貨物情況只是“據稱”如其添加的細節所述。承運人以此拒絕承擔有關貨物狀況的責任。根據大多數援用的法律或原則，承運人必須至少使用合理的方法檢驗貨物狀況是否正確，否則對收貨人負有責任。然而，在集裝箱貿易中，承運人無從檢查集裝箱內貨物，除非承運人負責將貨物裝入集裝箱。
There are only two terms, which deal with insurance, namely CIF and CIP. Under the terms the seller is obliged to procure insurance for the benefit of the buyer. In other cases it is for the parties themselves to decide whether and to what extent they want to cover themselves by insurance. Since the seller takes out insurance for the benefit of the buyer, he would not know the buyer’s precise requirements. Under the Institute Cargo Clauses drafted by the Institute of London Underwriters, insurance is available in “minimum cover” under clause C, “medium cover” under Clause B and “most extended cover” under Clause A. Since in the sale of commodities under the CIF term the buyer may wish to sell the goods in transit to a subsequent buyer who in turn may wish to resell the goods again, it is impossible to know the insurance cover suitable to such subsequent buyers and, therefore, the minimum cover under CIF has traditionally been chosen with the possibility for the buyer to require the seller to take out additional insurance. Minimum cover is however unsuitable for sale of manufactured goods where the risk of theft, pilferage or improper handling or custody of the goods would require more than the cover available under Clause C. Since CIP, as distinguished from CIF, would normally not be used for the sale of commodities, it would have been feasible to adopt the most extended cover under CIP rather than the minimum cover under CIF. But to vary the seller’s insurance obligation under CIF and CIP would lead to confusion and both terms therefore limit the seller’s insurance obligation to the minimum cover. It is particularly important for the CIP-buyer to observe this: should additional cover be required, he should agree with the seller that the latter could take out additional insurance or, alternatively, arrange for extended insurance cover himself. There are also particular insurances where the buyer may wish to obtain even more protection than is available under Institute Clause A, for example insurance against war, riots, civil commotion, strikes or other labour disturbances. If he wishes the seller to arrange such insurance he must instruct him accordingly, in which case the seller would have to provide such insurance if procurable.
涉及保險的術語只有兩個，即CIF和CIP。在這兩個術語下，賣方有義務為買方的利益辦理保險。在其他情況下，則是由當事方自己決定是否要辦理保險以及投保到什么程度。由于賣方要為買方的利益辦理保險，賣方不一定知道買方的詳細要求。根據由倫敦保險人協會(Institute of London Underwriters)擬定的《協會貨物保險條款》(Institute Cargo Clauses)，(C)規定辦理“最低程度”的保險，(B)規定辦理中等程度保險， (A)規定辦理最高險別。在CIF 術語下的農礦產品銷售中，買方或許希望將在途貨物賣給新的買方，而這個新的買方也許希望再將貨物售出，所以，賣方不可能了解這些后繼買方的保險要求。因此，在CIF術語下，
傳統上選擇最低程度的保險，但買方可以要求賣方辦理附加保險。但最低保險對制成品貨物的銷售可能不太適宜，因為對制成品而言存在偷盜、不當搬運或保管的風險，要求為貨物投保超過《協會貨物保險條款》 (C)下“最低程度”的保險。由于CIP不同于CIF，一般不用于農礦產品的銷售，如果在CIP 下采用最高險別而不是CIF 下的最低險別，將會是可行的。但若在CIF 和CIP 術語下對賣方辦理貨物保險義務的要求不同，則容易導致混亂。所以，這兩個術語要求賣方只限于辦理“最低程度”的貨物保險。對于CIP 術語下的買方來說，注意到這一點是非常重要的。如果買方要求附加的險別，他可以與賣方協議由賣方辦理或自
行安排辦理更高的保險。在某些情況下，買方也許會要求獲得比《協會貨物保險條款》(A)更高的保險，比如戰爭險、動亂險、民變險、罷工或其他勞工動亂險。若買方希望賣方安排這樣的保險，買方必須指示賣方，而賣方必須在可能,情況下負責安排這些保險。
9.4. The “D” terms are different in nature from the “C” terms, since the seller according to the “D” terms is responsible for the arrival of the goods at the agreed place or point of destination at the border or within the country of import. The seller must bear all risks and costs in bringing the goods thereto. Hence, the “D” terms signify arrival contracts, while the “C” terms evidence departure (shipment) contracts.
9.4 D組術語與C組術語有著本質區別。根據D組術語，賣方負責將貨物運至邊境或進口國內的約定目的地或點。賣方必須承擔貨物運至該地前的全部風險和費用，因此，D組術語屬于到貨合同，而C組術語則屬于離港(裝運)合同。
Under the “D” terms except DDP the seller does not have to deliver the goods cleared for import in the country of destination.
在D組術語下，除了DDP，賣方在目的地國交貨時無須辦理進口手續。
Traditionally, the seller had the obligation to clear the goods for import under DEQ, since the goods had to be landed on the quay and thus were brought into the country of import. But owing to changes in customs clearance procedures in most countries, it is now more appropriate that the party domiciled in the country concerned undertakes the clearance and pays the duties and other charges. Thus, a change in DEQ has been made for the same reason as the change in FAS previously mentioned. As in FAS, in DEQ the change has been marked with capital letters in the preamble.
傳統的做法，在DEQ 術語下，賣方有義務辦理貨物的進口清關手續，因為貨物需要搬運到碼頭，這樣就進入了進口國。但是，由于大多數國家的清關手續發生了變化，現在由居住在該國的一方辦理進口清關手續并交納關稅和其他費用更為合適。所以，DEQ術語有了一些改變，正如前面提到的FAS 術語的變化一樣。DEQ 術語中的變化在序言中以黑體字標出。
It appears that in many countries trade terms not included in Incoterms are used particularly in railway traffic (“Franco border”, “Franco frontiere”, “Frei Grenze”). However, under such terms it is normally not intended that the seller should assume the risk of loss of or damage to goods during the transport up to the border. It would be preferable in these circumstances to use CPT indicating the border. If, on the other hand, the parties intend that the seller should bear the risk during the transport DAF indicating the border would be appropriate.
看來，很多國家使用一些沒有收進Incoterms 中的貿易術語，尤其是在鐵路運輸中(如franco border，franco—frontiere，Frei Granze)等。然而，在這些術語下，通常并不想讓賣方承擔將貨物運至邊境前的貨物滅失或損壞的風險。在這些情況下，最好使用CPT指明邊境。另一方面，如果他們希望讓賣方負擔運輸中的風險，使用指明邊境的DAF術語將更合適。
The DDU term was added in the 1990 version of Incoterms. The term fulfils an important function whenever the seller is prepared to deliver the goods in the country of destination without clearing the goods for import and paying the duty. In countries where import clearance may be difficult and time consuming, it may be risky for the seller to undertake an obligation to deliver the goods beyond the customs clearance point. Although, according to DDU B5 and B6, the buyer would have to bear the additional risks and costs which might follow from his failure to fulfill his obligations to clear the goods for import, the seller is advised not to use the DDU term in countries where difficulties might be expected in clearing the goods for import.
DDU術語是在Incoterms l990中新加入的。當賣方準備在目的國交貨但不辦理進口手續、不交納關稅時，該術語就發揮了重要作用。在那些辦理海關手續很困難而且耗時很久的國家里，賣方承擔在完成海關清關手續后交貨的義務將是有風險的。盡管按照DDU術語的B5和B6條款，買方要承擔其未完成貨物進口手續情況時可能發生的額外風險和費用，我們仍然建議在與辦理貨物進口手續可能會有困難的國家的交易中，賣方不使用DDU 術語。
10. THE EXPRESSION ‘NO OBLIGATION’
10.“無義務”的表示
As appears from the expressions “the seller must” and “the buyer must”, Incoterms are only concerned with the obligations which the parties owe to each other. The words “no obligation” have therefore been inserted whenever one party does not owe an obligation to the other party. Thus, if for instance according to A3 of the respective term the seller has to arrange and pay for the contract of carriage we find the words “no obligation” under the heading “contract of carriage” in B3 a) setting forth the buyer’s position. Again, where neither party owes the other an obligation, the words “no obligation” will appear with respect to both parties, for example, with respect to insurance.
“賣方必須”和“買方必須”這樣的表達方法體現出Incoterms 只涉及當事雙方對對方承擔的義務。這樣，“無義務”一詞則被用于一方對另一方不承擔義務的情況。如果按各該術語中A3 條款賣方須安排并支付運輸費用，則在B3 a)的“運輸合同”項目下“無義務”的字樣即規定了買方的地位。同樣，當任何一方對對方都不承擔義務時，在雙方名下都會出現“無義務’一詞，例如有關“保險”的情況。
In either case, it is important to point out that even though one party may be under “no obligation” towards the other to perform a certain task, this does not mean that it is not in his interest to perform that task. Thus, for example, just because a CFR buyer owes his seller no duty to make a contract of insurance under B4, it is clearly in his interest to make such a contract, the seller being under no such obligation to procure insurance cover under A4.
在上述任何—種情況下，重要的是要指出，即使一方“無義務’為另一方履行某項任務，這并不意味著履行該任務不符合它的利益。例如，CFR的買方按照B4對賣方并無投保的責任，但很明顯買方投保符合其利益，因為在該術語下按照A4 賣方也沒有義務獲取保險。
11. VARIANTS OF INCOTERMS
11．Incoterms的變體
In practice, it frequently happens that the parties themselves by adding words to an Incoterms seek further precision than the term could offer. It should be underlined that Incoterms give no guidance whatsoever for such additions. Thus, if the parties cannot rely on a well established custom of the trade for the interpretation of such additions they may encounter serious problems when no consistent understanding of the additions could be proven. If for instance the common expressions “FOB stowed” or “EXW loaded” are used, it is impossible to establish a world wide understanding to the effect that the seller’s obligations are extended not only with respect to the cost of actually loading the goods in the ship or on the vehicle respectively but also include the risk of fortuitous loss of or damage to the goods in the process of stowage and loading. For these reason, the parties are strongly advised to clarify whether they only mean that the function or the cost of the stowage and loading operations should fall upon the seller or whether he should also bear the risk until the stowage and loading has actually been completed. These are questions to which Incoterms do not provide an answer: consequently, if the contract too fails expressly to describe the parties’ intentions, the parties may be put to much unnecessary trouble and cost.
在實務中，當事雙方經常在Incoterms術語基礎上添加詞句以求得比術語更精確的約定。需要強調的是， Incoterms對任何這種添加的內容不提供任何指導規定。這樣，如果當事方無法依賴一個公認的行業慣例來解釋其新增內容時，他們可能會由于無法就新增內容證明有一貫的理解而面臨嚴重的問題。以常用的“FOB理艙”和“EXW 裝車”為例，賣方的義務不僅被擴大至包括負擔將貨物分別裝到船上或裝上車輛的費用，而且也包括在裝艙和裝貨期間貨物意外的滅失或損壞的風險，這就無法在全世界達成—致的理解。由于上述原因，強烈建議當事雙方明確表示他們是否只打算由賣方承擔裝艙和裝車的任務及費用，還是賣方也需要承擔裝艙和裝車全部結束之前的風險。對此Incoterms 并無答案。其結果，假如合同也未對雙方意圖加以明確的話，雙方就將面臨不必要的麻煩和費用了。
Although Incoterms 2000 do not provide for many of these commonly used variants, the preambles to certain trade term do alert the parties to the need for special contractual term if the parties wish to go beyond the stipulations of Incoterms.
盡管Incoterms 2000 未對許多這樣的普遍使用的變體作出規定，某些術語的序言確實在提醒雙方，如希望超出Incoterms 的規定來分配雙方義務的話，需要使用特殊的合同條款。例如：
EXW the added obligation for the seller to load the goods on the buyer’s collecting vehicle;
EXW 關于賣方將貨物裝上買方的運輸工具的額外義務；
CIF/CIP the buyer’s need for additional insurance;
CIF/CIP 關于買方安排貨物額外保險的需要；
DEQ the added obligation for the seller to pay for costs after discharge.
DEQ 關于賣方支付卸貨之后的費用的額外義務。
In some cases sellers and buyers refer to commercial practice in liner and charter party trade. In these circumstances, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the obligations of the parties under the contract of carriage and their obligations to each other under the contract of sale. Unfortunately, there are no authoritative definitions of expressions such as “liner terms” and “terminal handling charges” (THC). Distribution of costs under such terms may differ in different places and change from time to time. The parties are recommended to clarify in the contract of sale how such costs should be distributed between themselves.
在—些情況下，賣方和買方援引班輪和租船合同中的商業慣例。這樣就需要明確地區分當事雙方在運輸合同中的義務和彼此在銷售合同中的義務。但是，對于“班輪條件”(liner terms)和“終點站搬運費”(Terminal Handling Charges，THC)等表達法尚無權威解釋。在這些條款下，費用的劃分因地點的不同而不同，而且經常變化。建議當事方在銷售合同中明確規定如何劃分雙方應承擔的費用。
Expressions frequently used in charter parties, such as “FOB stowed”, “FOB stowed and trimmed”, are sometimes used in contracts of sale in order to clarify to what extent the seller under FOB has to perform stowage and trimming of the goods onboard the ship. Where such words are added, it is necessary to clarify in the contract of sale whether the added obligations only relate to costs or to both costs and risks.
在租船合同中經常使用的表達法如“FOB理艙”，“FOB理艙和平艙”等，有時被用在銷售合同中以明確在FOB術語下賣方要在何種程度內負擔理艙和平艙的義務。當使用此類附加語時，有必要在銷售合同中明確額外的義務只限于費用還是包括費用和風險。
As has been said, every effort has been made to ensure that Incoterms reflect the most common commercial practice. However in some cases - particularly where Incoterms 2000 differ from Incoterms 1990 - the parties may wish the trade terms to operate differently. They are reminded of such options in the preamble of the terms signaled by the word “However”.
如上所述，我們盡量使Incoterms反映出最通行的國際商業做法。然而，在某些情況下，尤其是當Incoterms 2000與Incoterms l990有不同之處時，當事方也許會希望以不同方式使用貿易術語。在貿易術語的序言中，以“但是”作句子的開頭專門提醒注意這些可能性。
12. CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OR OF A PARTICULAR TRADE
12. 港口或特定行業的習慣做法
Since Incoterms provide a set of terms for use in different trades and regions it is impossible always to set forth the obligations of the parties with precision. To some extent it is therefore necessary to refer to the custom of the port or of the particular trade or to the practices which the parties themselves may have established in their previous dealings (cf. article 9 of the 1980 United Nations convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods). It is of course desirable that sellers and buyers keep themselves duly informed of such customs when they negotiate their contract and that, whenever uncertainty arises, they clarify their legal position by appropriate clauses in their contract of sale. Such special provisions in the individual contract would supersede or vary anything that is set forth as a rule of interpretation in the various Incoterms.
因為貿易術語要在不同行業和不同地區使用，對雙方的義務不能總是規定得很精確。因此，在某種程度上，有必要參考港口的或特定行業的習慣做法，或當事方在先前的交易中已經建立的習慣做法(參見《一九八0年聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》第九條)。對于賣方和買方而言，當協商銷售合同時，使自己及時了解這些習慣做法，并在不能確定時，通過在銷售合同中適當的條款以澄清當事方的法律地位是值得推薦的做法。在具體合同中這些特別條款將取代或改變Incoterms規定的任何解釋規則。
13. THE BUYER'S OPTIONS AS TO THE PLACE OF SHIPMENT
13．買方關于裝運地的選擇權
In some situations, it may not be possible at the time when the contract of sale is entered into to decide precisely on the exact point or even the place where the goods should be delivered by the seller for carriage. For instance reference might have been made at this stage merely to a “range” or to a rather large place, for example, seaport, and it is then usually stipulated that the buyer has the right or duty to name later on the more precise point within the range or the place. If the buyer has a duty to name the precise point as aforesaid his failure to do so might result in liability to bear the risks and additional costs resulting from such failure (B5/B7 of all terms). In addition, the buyer’s failure to use his right to indicate the point may give the seller the right to select the point which best suits his purpose (FCA A4).
在一些情況下，在訂立銷售合同時可能無法準確地確定賣方將貨物交運的點(Point))甚至地點 (Place)。比如，在這一階段，可能只約定在“某一范圍”或一個較大的地點，如海港。在這種情況下，通常規定買方隨后有權利或有義務在這一范圍或地點內指定更精確的地點。若如上文所述買方有義務提供精確點而他沒有做到，則買方就要承擔由這種未盡義務而造成的任何額外的風險和費用(如所有術語中B5／B7 條款規定)。除此之外，若買方沒能使用自己的權利指示交貨點，則賣方可以選擇在對賣方最合適的點交貨(FCA A4)。
14. CUSTOMS CLEARANCE
14. 清關
The term “customs clearance” has given rise to misunderstandings. Thus, whenever reference is made to an obligation of the seller or the buyer to undertake obligations in connection with passing the goods through customs of the country of export or import it is now made clear that this obligation does not only include the payment of duty and other charges but also the performance and payment of whatever administrative matters are connected with the passing of the goods through customs and the information to the authorities in this connection. Further, it has although quite wrongfully been considered in some quarters inappropriate to use terms dealing with the obligation to clear the goods through customs when, as in intra-European Union trade or other free trade areas, there is no longer any obligation to pay duty and no restrictions relating to import or export. In order to clarify the situation, the words “where applicable” have been added in the A2 and B2, A6 and B6 clauses of the relevant Incoterms in order for them to be used without any ambiguity where no customs procedures are required.
“清關”這個詞已經造成了一些誤解，因此，現在已明確，無論何時當賣方或買方承擔將貨物運過出口國或進口國的海關的義務時，這項義務不僅包括交納關稅和其他費用，而且包括履行一切與貨物通過海關有關的行政事務以及向當局提供必要信息并交納相關費用。在某些地區，如歐盟內部或其他自由貿易區，當不再有交納關稅的義務和對進出口的限制時，有人認為使用規定辦理貨物清關手續義務的術語是不恰當的 (盡管這是錯誤的認識)。為此，“在需要辦理海關手續時(where applicable)”的用語被加入了相關術語的A2和B2、A6和B6條款，這樣，在無須辦理海關手續的情況下，使用該用語就可以避免模棱兩可。
It is normally desirable that customs clearance is arranged by the party domiciled in the country where such clearance should take place or at least by somebody acting there on his behalf. Thus, the exporter should normally clear the goods for export, while the importer should clear the goods for import.
清關手續由住所在該國的一方或其代表辦理通常是可取的。因此，出口商通常應辦理出口清關手續，進口商應辦理進口清關手續。
Incoterms 1990 departed form this under the trade terms EXW and FAS (export clearance duty on the buyer) and DEQ (import clearance duty on the seller) but in Incoterms 2000 FAS and DEQ place the duty of clearing the goods for export on the seller and to clear them for import on the buyer respectively, while EXW representing the seller’s minimum obligation has been left unammended (export clearance duty on the buyer). Under DDP the seller specially agrees to do what follows from the very name of the term Delivered Duty Paid namely to clear the goods for import and pay any duty as a consequence thereof.
Incoterms l990 中的EXW、FAS(要求買方辦理貨物出口清關手續)和DEQ(要求賣方辦理進口清關手續)與上述原則不一致。Incoterms 2000的FAS和DEQ術語分別將辦理出口和進口清關手續的義務規定給賣方和買方，但表示賣方最小義務的術語EXW卻未被改動(買方仍承擔辦理出口清關的義務)。DDP術語的字面含義即完稅后交貨(Delivered Duty Paid)，采用該術語自然表示賣方明確同意完成該術語的義務，即辦理進口清關手續并交納全部相關費用。
15. PACKAGING
15.包裝
In most cases, the parties would know beforehand which packaging is required for the safe carriage of the goods to destination. However, since the seller’s obligation to pack the goods may well vary according to the type and duration of the transport envisaged, it has been felt necessary to stipulate that the seller is obliged to pack the goods in such a manner as is required for the transport, but only to the extent that the circumstances relating to the transport are made known to him before the contract of sale is concluded (cf. articles 35. 1. and 35. 2. b. of the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods where the goods, including packaging, must be “fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller’s skill and judgement”).
大多數情況下，當事人事先知道貨物安全運至目的地需要何種包裝。但是，由于賣方包裝貨物的義務可能因具體的運輸方式和期限而大相徑庭，因而有必要規定賣方有義務使貨物的包裝適合運輸方式的要求，但只限于在訂立銷售合同前已經知道有關運輸的情況(參閱《一九八0 年聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》第三十五條一款和第三十五條二款b 項規定，即貨物包裝必須“適用于訂立合同時曾明示或默示地通知賣方的任何特定目的，除非情況表明買方并不依賴賣方的技能和判斷力，或者這種依賴是不合理的)。
16. INSPECTION OF GOODS
16. 貨物檢驗
In many cases, the buyer may be well advised to arrange for inspection of the goods before or at the time they are handed over by the seller for carriage (so called pre-shipment inspection or PSI). Unless the contract stipulates otherwise, the buyer would himself have to pay the cost for such inspection that is arranged in his own interest. However, if the inspection has been made in order to enable the seller to comply with any mandatory rules applicable to the export of the goods in his own country, the seller would have to pay for that inspection, unless the EXW term is used, in which case, the costs of such inspection are for the account of the buyer.
在許多情況下，人們會建議買方在賣方把貨物交付運輸前或交付運輸時安排貨物檢驗(稱為“裝運前檢驗”)。
除非合同另有規定，買方應承擔檢驗費用，這種檢驗是為了他自身利益而安排的。但是，若進行的檢驗是
為了使賣方履行在其本國適用于出口貨物的任何強制性規定，則賣方應支付檢驗費用，除非使用的是EXW
術語，這時買方應負擔檢驗費用。
17. MODE OF TRANSPORT AND THE APPROPRIATE INCOTERMS 2000
17. 運輸方式和相應的Incoterms術語
Any mode of transport
適用于任何運輸方式
Group E E組
EXW Ex ‘works (… named place) 工廠交貨（……指定地點）
Group F F組
FCA Free Carrier (… named place) FCA 貨交承運人（……指定地點）
Group C C組
CPT Carriage Paid To (… named place of destination) CPT 運費付至（……指定目的地）
CIP Carriage and Insurance Paid To (… named place of destination) CIP 運費、保險費付至（……指定目的地）
Group D D組
DAF Delivered At Frontier (… named place) DAF 邊境交貨（……指定地點）
DDU Delivered Duty Unpaid (… named place of destination) DDU未完稅交貨（……指定目的地）
DDP Delivered Duty Paid (… named place of destination) DDU 完稅交貨（……指定目的地）
Maritime and inland waterway transport only
只適用于海運及內河運輸
Group F F組
FAS Free Alongside Ship (… named port of shipment) FAS 船邊交貨（……指定裝運港）
FOB Free on Board (… named port of shipment) FOB 船上交貨（……指定裝運港）
Group C C組
CFR Cost and Freight (… named port of destination) CFR 成本加運費（……指定目的港）
CIF Cost, Insurance and Freight (… named port of destination) CIF 成本、保險費加運費（……指定目的港）
Group D D組
DES Delivered Ex Ship (… named port of destination) DES 目的港船上交貨（……指定目的港）
DEQ Delivered Ex Quay (… named port of destination) DEQ 目的港碼頭交貨（……指定目的港）
18. THE RECOMMENDED USE
18. 推薦使用
In some cases the preamble recommends the use or non use of a particular term. This is particularly important with respect to the choice between FCA and FOB. Regrettably, merchants continue to use FOB when it is totally out of place thereby causing the seller to incur risks subsequent to the handing over of the goods to the carrier named by the buyer. FOB is only appropriate to use where the goods are intended to be delivered “across the ship’s rail” or, in any event, to the ship and not where the goods are handed over to the carrier for subsequent entry into the ship, for example stowed in containers or loaded on lorries or wagons in so-called roll on-roll off traffic. Thus, a strong warning has been made in the preamble of FOB that the term should not be used when the parties do not intend delivery across the ship’s rail.
在某些情況下，序言推薦使用或者不使用某個術語。注意這一點在選擇FCA和FOB時尤其重要。遺憾的是，商人們依然不適當地使用FOB，這使賣方在將貨物交給買方指定的承運人之后依然會遇到風險。FOB僅在下列情況下適用，即當賣方只打算越過船舷交貨，不管怎么樣要交到船上，而不是將貨物交給承運人以使貨物能被繼續運輸和裝載到船上，例如裝到集裝箱內或裝上卡車等所謂集裝運輸工具上。所以，前言中有強烈的警告，若當事方無意超過船舷交貨則不應使用該術語。
It happens that the parties by mistake use terms intended for carriage of goods by sea when another mode of transport is contemplated. This may put the seller in the unfortunate position that he cannot fulfil his obligation to tender the proper document to the buyer (for example a bill of lading, sea waybill or the electronic equivalent). The chart printed at paragraph 17 above makes clear which trade term in Incoterms 2000 it is appropriate to use for which mode of transport. Also, it is indicated in the preamble of each term whether it can be used for all modes of transport or only for carriage goods by sea.
也會出現這樣的情況，即當買賣雙方考慮使用其他運輸方式時卻錯誤地使用了適合于海運的術語。這將會使賣方處于不利的處境，即無法完成向買方提交適當單據的義務(如提單、海運單或有同等作用的電子訊息)。第17節中的圖表顯示了不同運輸方式適用的Incoterms 2000的術語，而且，各個術語的序言也提示該術語是適用于所有運輸方式或僅適用于海運。
19. THE BILL OF LADING AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
19.提單和電子商務
Traditionally, the on board bill of lading has been the only acceptable document to be presented by the seller under the CFR and CIF terms. The bill of lading fulfils three important functions, namely:
傳統做法，在CFR和CIF術語下，裝船提單是賣方應提供的惟一可接受的單據，提單起到了三個重要的
作用，即：
-proof of delivery of the goods on board the vessel;
-evidence of the contract of carriage; and
-a means of transferring rights to the goods in transit to another party by the transfer of the paper document to him
·將貨物交付至船上的證明；
·運輸合同的證明；
·一種通過將紙面單據(paper document)交給另一方而將在途貨物的權利轉移給另一方的方式。
Transport documents other than the bill of lading would fulfil the two first mentioned functions, but would not control the delivery of the goods at destination or enable a buyer to sell the goods in transit by surrendering the paper document to his buyer. Instead, other transport documents would name the party entitled to receive the goods at destination. The fact that the possession of the bill of lading is required in order to obtain the goods from the carrier at destination makes it particularly difficult to replace by electronic means of communication.
除提單外的其他運輸單據可以完成上述三項作用的前兩項，但它們卻無法控制貨物在目的地交貨或使買方能夠通過將紙面單據交付給其買方而賣出在途貨物。而其他運輸單據則將指明在目的地有權接受貨物的當事方的名字。為了保證在目的地能夠向承運人提取貨物，擁有提單是必要的，這就使用電子通訊方式取代提單變得尤其困難。
Further, it is customary to issue bills of lading in several originals but it is, of course, of vital importance for a buyer or a bank acting upon his instructions in paying the seller to ensure that all originals are surrendered by the seller (so called “full set”). This is also a requirement under the ICC Rules for Documentary Credits (the so called ICC Uniform Customs and Practice, “UCP”; current version at date of publication of Incoterms 2000: ICC publication 500).
另外，習慣上簽發數份正本提單，這時，買方或按其指示向賣方付款的銀行，確信所有正本都已由賣方提交(所謂“全套”)至關重要。這也是ICC 有關跟單信用證的規則(即《跟單信用證統一規則》，在Incoterms2000出版時其版本為UCP500)的要求。
The transport document must evidence not only delivery of the goods to the carrier but also that the goods, as far as could be ascertained by the carrier, were received in good order and condition. Any notation on the transport document which would indicate the goods had not been in such condition would make the document “unclean” and would thus make it unacceptable under the UCP.
運輸單據不僅必須證明貨物已經交付承運人，而且要證明在承運人能夠確定的范圍內貨物被收到時狀況良好。在運輸單據中任何表示貨物并非呈良好狀況的批注將會使該單據成為“不清潔”單據，這樣的單據根據UCP將無法接受。
In spite of the particular legal nature of the bill of lading it is expected that it will be replaced by electronic means in the near future. The 1990 version of Incoterms had already taken this expected development into proper account. According to the A8 clauses, paper documents may be replaced by electronic messages provided the parties have agreed to communicate electronically. Such messages could be transmitted directly to the party concerned or through a third party provided added-value services. One such service that can be usefully provided by a third party is registration of successive holders of a bill of lading. Systems providing such services, such as the so-called BOLERO service, many require further support by appropriate legal norms and principles as evidenced by the CMI 1990 Rules for Electronic Bills of Lading and articles 16-17 of the 1996 UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce.
盡管提單具有特定的法律性質，但預計在不遠的將來會被電子方式替代。Incoterms 1990 充分估計了這種可以預期的發展。根據A8條款，若當事方同意以電子方式通訊，則可以用具有同等作用的電子訊息取代紙面運輸單據。這些電子訊息可以被直接或經由提供增值服務的第三方傳送至有關當事人。一種第三方可以提供的有用的服務是登記提單的一系列持有人。提供這種服務的系統，如BOLERO(提單電子登記組織)的服務，或許需要得到像《國際海運委員會電子提單一九九0 年規則》第十六條、第十七條和《一九九六年UNCITRAL電子商務示范法》那樣的法律規范和原則的進一步支持。
20. NON-NEGOTIABLE TRANSPORT DOCUMENTS INSTEAD OF BILLS OF LADING
20. 不可轉讓的運輸單據替代提單
In recent years, a considerable simplification of documentary practices has been achieved. Bills of lading are frequently replaced by non-negotiable documents similar to those which are used for other modes of transport than carriage by sea. These documents are called “sea waybills”, “liner waybills”, “freight receipt”, or variants of such expressions. Non-negotiable documents are quite satisfactory to use except where the buyer wishes to sell the goods in transit by surrendering a paper document to the new buyer. In order to make this possible, the obligation of the seller to provide a bill of lading under CFR and CIF must necessarily be retained. However, when the contracting parties know that the buyer does not contemplate selling the goods in transit, they may specifically agree to relieve the seller from the obligation to provide a bill of lading, or, alternatively, they may use CPT and CIP where there is no requirement to provide a bill of lading.
近幾年，簡化單據的做法取得了很大進展。提單經常被不可轉讓的運輸單據所代替，它類似于海運以外的其他運輸方式所使用的運輸單據。這些單據被稱為“海運單”、“班輪運單”、“貨運收據”或其他名稱。使用這些不可轉讓單據也無不可，但當買方希望通過提交單據給新的買方來出售在途貨物時就不行了。為了使出售在途貨物成為可能，有必要在CFR和CIF術語下保留賣方提供提單的義務。然而，如合同當事人知道買方不打算銷售在途貨物，他們可以達成明確協議來免除賣方提供提單的義務，或者在不需要提供提單時采用CPT和CIP 這兩種術語。
21. THE RIGHT TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CARRIER
21. 對承運人給予指示的權利
A buyer paying for the goods under a “C” term should ensure that the seller upon payment is prevented from disposing of the goods by giving new instructions to the carrier. Some transport documents used for particular modes of transport (air, road or rail) offer the contracting parties a possibility to bar the seller from giving such new instructions to the carrier by providing the buyer with a particular original or duplicate of the waybill. However, the documents used instead of bills of lading for maritime carriage do not normally contain such a barring function. The Comite Maritime International has remedied this shortcoming of the above mentioned documents by introducing the 1990 “Uniform Rules for Sea Waybills” enabling the parties to insert a “no-disposal” clause whereby the seller surrenders the right to dispose of the goods by instructions to the carrier to deliver the goods to somebody else or at another place than stipulated in the waybill.
在C組術語下，買方支付貨款時應確信賣方收款后無權就貨物的處置對承運人作出新的指示。有些用于特殊運輸方式(空運、公路或鐵路)的運輸單據通過向買方交付特定的運單正本或兩聯中的一聯，使買方有排除賣方對承運人作出新指示的可能性。但在海運中用以替代提單的運輸單據通常并不包含這種“阻止”功能。國際海事委員會為彌補這一缺陷，引入了《海運單統一規則》，使當事方可以加入—“無處置權”條款，賣方據此放棄指示承運人向其他人或在運單中指定地點之外的地點交貨的權利。
22. ICC ARBITRATION
22. ICC仲裁
Contracting parties who wish to have the possibility of resorting to ICC Arbitration in the event of a dispute with their contracting partner should specifically and clearly agree upon ICC Arbitration in their contract or, in the event that no single contractual document exists, in the exchange of correspondence which constitutes the agreement between them. The fact of incorporating one or more Incoterms in a contract or the related correspondence does not by itself constitute an agreement to have resort to ICC Arbitration.
The following standard arbitration clause is recommended by ICC:
若合同當事人愿意在相互間發生爭議時提交 ICC 仲裁，則應在合同(或當沒有單獨的合同文本時，在達成協議的相互往來函電)中確切、清楚地約定采用ICC 仲裁。合同中或與之有關的來往函電中訂入一種或幾種Incoterms 術語本身并不構成采用ICC 仲裁的協議。ICC 在此推薦下列標準ICC 仲裁條款：
“All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules.”
“與本合同有關的一切爭議應根據ICC 仲裁規則，由根據該規則指定的一名或幾名仲裁員最終裁決。”
(聲明：本站所使用圖片及文章如無注明本站原創均為網上轉載而來，本站刊載內容以共享和研究為目的，如對刊載內容有異議，請聯系本站站長。本站文章標有原創文章字樣或者署名本站律師姓名者，轉載時請務必注明出處和作者，否則將追究其法律責任。) |
