5. Can a “short cut “ be made by handing over a Statement of Claim (against) an importer to his customs agent? Not always…

View PDF | Print View
by: gill@nadel-law.co.il
Word Count: 1087
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 Time: 3:02 AM

The facts of the case and claims of the parties:

The global Adidas Company filed a claim against Ms. Havira Abad Rahman, from Kabul in the Western Galilee. Adidas chose to send the Statement of Claim to her customs agent,  who is situated in Haifa, and claimed that since he handled the shipments relevant to the  claim, he should be regarded as “authorized” to accept the claim on her behalf.

After a verdict was handed down  in the absence of Ms. Rahman, the defendant asked that the verdict be cancelled and claimed that Adidas should have sent the Statement of Claim personally to her and that sending it via her customs agent in Haifa should not be seen as a “personal handling" it to her. She further claimed that the customs agent sent the Statement of claim to her in a sealed envelope which she opened only after the sentence against her was given, as she was sure that the letter was a usual correspondence between them.
The registrar of the court rejected the request and recently, a verdict on the appeal was handed down from the district court.

The decision on the appeal:
The court noted that there is no question that the customs agent handled the goods for Ms. Rahman that were discussed in the case, but that this does not automatically empowers him to accept on her behalf the claim against her as her "authorized", and treat it as though the claim was directly handed to her.

The court mentioned that even if the customs agent was to be seen as "authorized" of Mrs. Abad Rahman, the law states that the authorized has to be authorized for business actions in the district in which the Claim was filed.

The court noted that since the claim was filed to the District Court of Tel Aviv, and  the customs agent handled Ms. Rahman’s goods in Ashdod and Haifa, clearly the customs agent can not  automatically be regarded as authorized to act on her behalf in the Tel Aviv area.

The court also commented that Adidas did not put enough effort into locating the defendant in the area of Kabul, which is in Israel’s territory, did not send the Statement of Claim by registered mail and did not try to locate the defendant's address by turning to the customs agent.

In light of all the above, the court cancelled the verdict against Ms. Rahman and charged Adidas with 20,000 NIS for expenses. 

Conclusions and Discussions:
The meaning of the new verdict is that Adidas's triumph in the original claim is cancelled and Adidas will once again need to re-conduct the claim against the defendant.

Interestingly enough, in other claims the court accepted the “short cut” and determined that giving a claim to an importer through his customs agent , in certain cases, is to be regarded as personally passing it to the importer. In such cases, usually the importer-defendant was from the Palestinian Authority and the court accepted the plaintiff's claim that there was an actual difficulty in locating and passing the claim to the importer personally.
In the case above (Rahaman vs. Adidas), the defendant was not a resident of the Palestinian Authority but of Israel, which led the court to dismiss the “short cut”.

Our opinion is that in spite of all this, the fact that the court chose to focus on the area in which the claim was filed and then compared it to the area where the customs agent operated, is a little simplistic, since it is clear that Adidas could have filed the claim in the area where the goods were seized, considering the fact that the goods were seized in a specific port..

(R.A. (reigistrar appeal) (District Tel Aviv 11868-01-11 Rahman V. Adidas et al., decision from 26.4.11 Judge Shitzer. The representatives of the parties: for the importer – adv. Nassar Aladin, For Adidas – adv. Shaulsky)

About the Author

Gill Nadel - Born in Israel in 1969, graduated from Bar Ilan University`s Faculty of Law (cum laude) and from the Department of Musicology. He also has a master`s degree in law from the same institution. Member of the Israel Bar since 1999. Speaks Hebrew, English and Polish. Fields of expertise: Commercial and Business Law, International Trade Law, Import and Export Law, Intellectual Property Law, Maritime and International Forwarding Law, Litigation and Court Representation. Adv. Nadel provides lectures on international trade law and import and export law to in courses organized by the Bar Ilan University Center for Commercial Law, Israel Bar, Israel Chambers of Commerce, Manufacturers Association of Israel, Israel Export Institute, Customs Brokers Association, International Forwarders, and more.

Comments