INCOTERMS 2000

2000年国际贸易术语解释通则

Entry into force 1^st 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. 《国际贸易术语解释通则》的宗旨和范围

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.

《国际贸易术语解释通则》（以下简称Incoterms）的宗旨是为国际贸易中最普遍使用的贸易术语提供一套解释的国际规则，以避免因各国不同解释而出现的不确定性，或至少在相当程度上减少这种不确定性。

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.

合同双方当事人之间互不了解对方国家的贸易习惯的情况时常出现。这就会引起误解、争议和诉讼，从而浪费时间和费用。为了解决这些问题，国际商会（ICC）于一九三六年首次公布了一套解释贸易术语的国际规则，名为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，现在则是二〇〇〇年版本中作出补充和修订以便使这些规则适应当前国际贸易实践的发展。

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).

需要强调的是，Incoterms涵盖的范围只限于销售合同当事人的权利义务中与已售货物（指“有形的”货物，不包括“无形的”货物，如电脑软件）交货有关的事项。

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.

关于Incoterms，看来有两个非常普遍的特别误解。一个是常常认为Incoterms适用于运输合同而不是销售合同。第二个是人们有时错误的以为它规定了当事人可能希望包含中销售合同中的所有责任。

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一贯强调的那样，Incoterms只涉及销售合同中买卖双方的关系，而且，只限于一些非常明确的方面。

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.

对进口商和出口商来讲，考虑那些为完成国际销售所需要的各种合同之间的实际关系当然是非常必要的。完成一笔国际贸易不仅需要销售合同，而且需要运输合同、保险合同和融资合同，而Incoterms只涉及其中的一项合同，即销售合同。

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.

虽然如此，当双方当事人同意使用某一个具体的贸易术语时，将不可避免地对其他合同产生影响。举例说明，卖方同意在合同中使用CFR和CIF术语时，他就只能以海运方式履行合同，因为在这两个术语下他必须向买方提供提单或其他海运单据，而如果使用其他运输方式，这些要求是无法满足的。而且，跟单信用证要求的单据也必须将取决于准备使用的运输方式。

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涉及为当事方设定的若干特定义务，如卖方将货物交给买方处置，或将货物交运或在目的地交货的义务，以及当事双方之间的风险划分。

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涉及货物进口和出口清关、货物包装的义务、买方受领货物的义务，以及提供证明各项义务得到完整履行的义务。尽管Incoterms对于销售合同的执行有着极为重要的意义，但销售合同中可能引起的许多问题却并未涉及，如货物所有权和其他产权的转移、违约、违约行为的后果以及某些情况下的免责。需要强调的是，Incoterms无意取代那些完整的销售合同所需要订入的标准条款或商定条款。

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不涉及违约的后果或由于各种法律障碍导致的免责事项，这些问题必须通过销售合同中的其他条款和适用的法律来解决。

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一直主要用于跨国境的货物销售支付，因此，它是一套国际商业术语。然而，有时Incoterms也被用于纯粹国内市场的货物销售合同中。在此情况下，Incoterms中的A2、B2以及任何与进出口有关的条款当然就变成多余了。

2. WHY REVISIONS OF INCOTERMS?

2．为什么需要对国际贸易术语解释通则进行修订？

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).

连续修订Incoterms的主要原因是使其适应当代商业的实践。一九八〇年修订本引入了货交承运人（现在为FCA）术语，其目的是为了适应在海上运输中经常出现的情况，即交货点不再是传统的FOB点（货物越过船舷），而是在将货物装船之前运到陆地上的某一点，在那里将货物装入集装箱，以便经由海运或其他运输方式（即所谓的联合或多式运输）继续运输。

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.

在一九九〇年的修订本中，涉及卖方提供交货凭证义务的条款在当事方同意使用电子方式通讯时，允许用电子数据交换（EDI）讯息替代纸面单据。毫无疑问，为了使Incoterms更利于实务操作，其草拟和表述一直都在改进。

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:

在为期两年的修订过程中，ICC尽其最大努力通过ICC各国家委员会吸取了各行业国际贸易从业者的意见和建议，完成了修订稿的多次修改。令人高兴的是，在Incoterms的这次修订中，ICC从全世界使用者得到的反馈意见超过了以往任何一次。ICC与Incoterms的使用者之间交流的结果产生了Incoterms2000这个版本，与1990相比看上去变化很小。原因很明显，即Incoterms当前已得到世界承认，所以ICC决定巩固Incoterms在世界范围内得到的承认，并避免为了变化而变化。另一方面，在修订过程中，ICC尽量保证Incoterms中的语言清楚准确地反映出国际贸易实务。新的版本在下面两个方面作出了实质性改变：

• the customs clearance and payment of duty obligations under FAS and DEQ; and

• the loading and unloading obligations under FCA.

• 在FAS和DEQ术语下，办理清关手续和交纳关税的义务；

• 在FCA术语下装货和缷货的义务。

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.

无论是实质变化还是在形式变化都是在对Incoterms的使用者广泛调查的基础上作出的，而且对一九九〇年以来Incoterms专家小组（专门为Incoterms使用者提供额外服务的机构）收到的咨询意见给予了充分考虑。

4. INCORPORATION OF INCOTERMS INTO THE CONTRACT OF SALE

4. 在销售合同中订入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”.

鉴于Incoterms不时修订，所以，如果合同当事方意图在合同中订入时，清楚地指明所引用的Incoterms版本是很重要的。人们很容易忽略这一点，例如在标准合同或订货单中引用了早期版本时，未能引用最新版本，可能会对当事方的意图是在合同中引用新版本还是早期版本引起纠纷。希望使用Incoterms2000的商人，应在合同中明确规定该合同受Incoterms2000约束。

5. THE STRUCTURE OF INCOTERMS

5. Incoterms2000的结构

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，为了便于理解，将所有的术语分为四个基本不同的类型。第一组为“E组”（EX WORKS），指卖方仅在自己的地点为买方准备妥货物；第二组为“F组”（FCA、FAS和FOB），指卖方须将货物交至买方指定的承运人；第三组“C组”（CFR、CIF和CIP），指卖方须订立运输合同，但对货物灭失或损坏的风险以及装船和启运后发生意外所发生的额外费用，卖方不承担责任；第四组“D组”（DAF、DES、DEQ、DDU和DDP），指卖方须承担把货物交至目的国所需的全部费用和风险。下表反映了这种分类方法：

Group E Departure

E组 发货

EXW Ex Works  

工厂交货（……指定地点）

Group F Main carriage unpaid

F组 主要运费未付

FCA Free Carrier (… named place)

FCA 货交承运人（……指定地点）

FAS Free Alongside Ship (… named port of shipment)

FAS 船边交货（……指定装运港）

FOB Free On Board (… named port of shipment)

FOB 船上交货（……指定装运港）

Group C Main carriage paid

C组 主要运费已付

CFR Cost and Freight (… named port of destination)

CFR 成本加运费（……指定目的港）

CIF Cost Insurance and Freight (… named port of destination)

CIF 成本、保险费加运费（……指定目的港）

CPT Carriage Paid To (… named place of destination)

CPT 运费付至（……指定目的地）

CIP Carriage and Insurance Paid To (… named place of destination)

CIP 运费、保险费付至（……指定目的地）

Group D Arrival

D组 到达

DAF Delivered At Frontier (…named place)

DAF 边境交货（……指定地点）

DES Delivered Ex Ship (… named port of destination)

DES 目的港船上交货（……指定目的港）

DEQ Delivered Ex Quay (… named port of destination)

DEQ 目的港码头交货（……指定目的港）

DDU Delivered Duty Unpaid (… named place of destination)

DDU 未完税交货（……指定目的地）

DDP Delivered Duty Paid (… named place of destination)

DDP 完税交货（……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.

与Incoterms一九九〇相同，所有术语下当事人各自的义务均用十个项目列出，卖方在每一项目中的地位“对应”了买方在同一项目中相应的地位。

6. TERMINOLOGY

6. 用语说明

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过程中，工作小组力求使这十三个术语中的不同表述尽可能地做到连贯一致，这样就避免了用不同表述表达相同的意义。而且，只要可能，均使用了一九八〇年《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》中的表述。

“Shipper”

“托运人”（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.

在一些情况下，需要用同一个词表示两个不同的意思，这只是由于无法找到合适的替代词的缘故。商人们在销售合同和运输合同中经常遇到这种困难。例如，“托运人”一词既表示将货物交付运输的人，又表示与承运人订立合同的人，而这两个“托运人”可能是不同的人，如在FOB合同中，卖方将货物交付运输，而买方则与承运人订立运输合同。

“Delivery”

“交货”（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.

需要特别注意的是，“交货”这个词在Incoterms中有两种不同含义。首先，“交货”一词被用来判断卖方何时完成了其交货义务，这规定在所有Incoterms的A4条款中。其次，“交货”也被用于买方受领或接受货物的义务，这规定在所有Incoterms的B4条款中。用于这第二种含义时，“交货”首先意味着买方“接受”C组术语的基本宗旨，即卖方在将货物交运时即完成其义务，其次，“交运”一词还意味着买方有受领货物的义务。为避免因买方提取货物前支付不必要的贮藏费，这后一种义务是很重要的。例如，在CFR和CIF术语的合同中，买方有义务接受货物并从承运人处领取货物，若买方未履行该义务，就可能对与承运人订立运输合同的卖方损失承担赔偿责任，或者向承运人支付货物滞期费以使承运人放货。在这方面，说买方必须“受领货物”并不表示买方将其作为符合销售合同而接受货物，而只是指买方接受这一事实，即卖方按C组术语A3a)款订立运输合同，完成了将货物交付运输的义务。如果买方在目的地收到货物后，发现货物与销售合同规定不符，买方可使用销售合同和适用的法律给予的任何一种补救办法向卖方寻求补偿。如前所述，此项事宜已完全超出Incoterms的适用范围。

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.

当货物在某一特定地点可交给买方时，Incoterms2000在适当之处使用了“将货物交给买方处置”的表述。这种表述与《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》中“将货物交与”的表述含义相同。

“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”一词在很多术语中出现，如在EXW术语中表示交货时间的条款（A4）中，在C组术语下关于卖方必须提供的单据和必须订立的运输合同的条款中（A8、A3）。当然说清楚“通常”的含义并非易事，然而在很多情况下，是有可能认定该行业内人士通常是如何行事的，这种行事惯例即可作为参照。在此意义上，“通常”这个词比“合理的”一词更有帮助。“合理的”要求的不是根据日常实践的评估，而要根据更难界定的善意和公平交易原则的评估。在一些情况下，可能还是需要判断什么是“合理的”。尽管如此，由于上述原因，在Incoterms中，一般使用“通常”一词而不使用“合理的”一词。

“Charges”

“费用”（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.

在涉及到办理货物进口手续的义务时，判断货物进口时要支付的“费用”包括哪些内容是很重要的。在Incoterms l990 中，DDP 术语A6 使用的是“在出口和进口中所需交纳的官方费用”。而在Incoterms 2000中，删去了“官方”一词，其原因是当决定某项收费是否是“官方”收费时，“官方”一词会造成某些不确定性。虽然删去了“官方”一词，但本意并非改变这一条款的实质意义。必须支付的“费用”仅涉及进口必然发生并按适用的进口管理规定必须支付的费用。其他任何由私人机构在货物进口时收取的费用不应包括在“费用”中，如与清关义务无关的贮存费。然而，若承担义务的一方非亲自履行该义务时，则履行此项义务可能发生付给海关经纪人或运输行(freight forwarders)的一些费用。

“Ports”, “places” and “premises”

“港口”(port)、“地点”(place)、“点”(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.

在交货地点的问题上，Incoterms 中使用了不同的表达方法。只适用于海运的术语，如FAS、FOB、CFR、CIF、DES和DEQ，使用了“装运港”和“目的港”两种表述。在所有其他的术语中使用的是“地点”(place)—词。在某些场合，有必要指明在“港口”和“地点”(place)内的某“点”(point)，因为卖方不仅需要知道他要把货物交至一个特定地区，例如某个城市，而且也要知道在该地区的什么点将货物交给买方处置。销售合同经常缺少这一方面的信息，于是，Incoterms 规定如果在指定地点没有约定交货点，并且有几个点可以选择，卖方可选择对其最有利的点交货(见FCA术语中的A4 条款)。当交货点是卖方的“地点”时，则使用了“卖方所在地”(FCA 术语中的A4 条款)。

“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.

在适用海上运输货物的术语中，“ship”和“vessel”被当做同义词使用。无须说明，当“ship”作为贸易术语的组成部分时，如“船边交货(FAS)”和“目的港船上交货(DES)”，必然要使用“ship”一词。同样，由于FOB 术语中传统上使用“越过船舷”的表述，因而必然会将“ship”一词用于相关内容。

“Checking” and “inspection”

“查对”(checking)和“检验”(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 条款分别使用“查对、包装和标记”和“货物检验”作为条款标题。尽管“checking”和“inspection”是同义词，但是人们认为这样来区别使用比较合适：在涉及卖方按A4 交货的义务时使用查对(checking)，而后者则用于一些特别情况，即进行“装运前检验”，因为在通常情况下只有当买方或货物出口或进口国当局希望在货物装运前保证货物符合合同或官方规定时才要求进行“检验”。

7. THE SELLER’S DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS

7．卖方的交货义务

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 将重点放在卖方的交货义务上。对与卖方交货有关联的责任和费用的准确分配在各当事方有持续商业关系的情况下一般不会有什么问题。他们会在相互之间确立一种习惯做法(course of dealing)，而且他们会按这种方式处理今后的交易。然而，当建立一种新的商业关系或通过经纪人的中介订立合同(这在农矿产品销售中是普遍现象)时，当事人一定要按合同规定办事，在将Incoterms 2000 订入合同时，按照Incoterms 2000 的规定划分责任、费用和风险。

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.

当然，人们希望Incoterms 能够尽可能细致地划分与交货有关的各当事方的义务。与Incoterms 1990 相比，Incoterms 2000 在某些具体情况下在这方面作了进一步努力(见FCA 术语中A4 条款)。但在FAS 和FOB A4中，不可避免地要援用行业惯例(“按港口的习惯方式”)，其原因是，在FAS 或FOB 合同下，将货物，尤其是农矿产品交运的具体做法在不同的海港是不一样的。

8. PASSING OF RISKS AND COSTS RELATING TO THE GOODS.

8. 与货物有关的风险和费用的转移

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).

当卖方交货后，货物灭失或损坏的风险，以及负担与货物有关的费用的义务便从卖方转移到买方。由于不应给予买方任何拖延风险和费用转移的机会，因此，所有术语都作出规定，当买方没有按约定受领货物或没有给予卖方完成交货义务的必要指示 (有关装船时间和／或交货地点)时，风险和费用甚至在交货之前就可转移。这种提前转移风险和费用的条件就是货物已指明为为买方准备的，或如术语所规定，已为买方“划

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 术语下，这一点尤为重要，因为在所有其他术语下，当采取措施为交运、发送货物(F组和C组)或在目的地交货做准备时(D组)，一般即可认为这批货物是专门为买方准备的。但在一些例外场合，如当卖方散装发运货物且未确定每一个买方的数量时，则在货物按前述规定特定化前，风险和费用不发生转移(参见《一九八0 年联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第六十九条第三项)。

9. THE TERMS

9. 术语

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组术语下卖方的义务最小：卖方只要将货物在约定地点，通常是在卖方所在地，交给买方处置即可。但是，另一方面，在实务中，卖方经常会帮助买方将货物装至买方的运输工具上。如果将卖方的义务扩大到包括装货，那么EXW 术语将更好地反应这一实务。但是，人们认为理想的是仍然保留EXW 下卖方义务最小的传统原则，其目的是适用于那些卖方不愿意承担任何装货义务的情况。若买方希望卖方负担更多的义务，应在销售合同中写明。

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组术语要求卖方按照买方的指示将货物交运。在FCA 术语下，当事各方所希望的交货点造成了困难，其原因是此术语所涉及的合同可能会遇到各式各样的情况。货物可能装上买方派往卖方所在地提取货物的车辆；或者货物也许需要从卖方派往买方指定的交货地点的车辆上卸下。Incoterms 2000 考虑到了上述可能，规定若合同中指定交货地点是卖方所在地，当货物装上买方的装货车辆时即完成交货，在其他情况下，当货物在卖方的车辆上尚未卸货而交给买方处置时，即完成交货。Incoterms 1990FCA术语A4条款中提到的各种不同运输方式在Incoterms 2000 中未再重复。

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 术语中的交货点与CFR 和CIF 术语中的相同，尽管对此有很多争论，在Incoterms 2000 中仍未做改动。虽然FOB 术语中的“越过船舷”交货的原则在当前许多情况下已不合适了，但是既然已为商人们所深知，并根据货物的特点和可用的装载设备的具体情况加以运用，更改FOB 的交货点可能会造成不必要的混乱，尤其对于按租船合同进行农矿产品运输来说，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术语被一些商人用来表示“任何”交货点，如“FOB工厂”，“FOB工场”，“FOB卖方工厂”或其他内陆地点，这样做就失去了FOB术语是“Free on Board”的缩写的意义了。如此使用FOB术语会造成混乱，应该避免。

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 术语办理货物出口手续的义务出现了重要的变化，因为看来最普遍的做法是由卖方而不是由买方承担这项义务。为了保证这一变化得到足够的重视，在FAS 序言中使用了黑体字来标出。

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 组术语要求卖方按照通常条件自付费用订立运输合同。因此，卖方支付运费运到的地点，必须在C组每一项术语后指明。按照CIF和CIP术语，卖方还要负责办理保险和负担保险费用。由于费用划分地点确定为目的地国家的某个点，因而C组术语往往被误认为是到货合同，在到货合同中，卖方要承担货物实际被运到约定地点之前的全部风险和费用。

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.

在此必须强调，C组术语与F组术语具有相同性质的一点，就在于卖方是在装运国或发货国完成合同履行。因此，C组术语的销售合同和F组术语的销售合同一样，属于装运合同。

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.

装运合同的特点是，卖方要支付将货物按照惯常航线和习惯方式运至约定地点所需的通常运输费用，而货物灭失或损坏的风险以及在货物以适当方式交付运输之后发生意外而发生的额外费用则应由买方承担。因此，C组术语包含两个区别于其他所有术语的“分界点”：一是指明卖方必须安排运输，并承担其费用的点；另一点是风险的划分点。为此，凡增加卖方在C组术语下的义务而扩大卖方的责任超出上述风险划分的“分界点”时，应特别小心。按照CIF和CAP术语，卖方在履行其合同义务，订立运输合同，将货物交付承运人并办理保险后，免除卖方任何进一步风险和费用，这正是C 组术语的实质所在。

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 组术语作为装运合同的本质也通过在此组术语下广泛使用跟单信用证作为人们喜用的付款方式显现出来。若销售合同的当事方同意，卖方凭跟单信用证向银行提交约定的运输单据后收取货款，则如果卖方在按照跟单信用证得到货款或在货物起运或发货后以其他方式得到货款之后，仍承担进一步的风险和费用，就与跟单信用证的中心目的背道而驰了。当然，不管运费在货物起运之前已经预付还是在目的地支付(运费到付)，卖方必须支付运输合同的费用；然而，在货物装船或发货后的事件所发生的额外费用必须由买方承担。

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.

如果卖方需要提供包括交纳关税、税款和其他费用在内的运输合同，那么，在合同约定这些费用由卖方支付时，当然应由卖方支付。这一点在所有C 组术语的A6 条款中已作出明确规定。

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.

若按习惯要订立几份运输合同，以便货物中途转运以抵达约定的目的地，则卖方必须支付所有的费用，包括货物从一种运输工具转到另一种运输工具而发生的费用。但是，若承运人依据转运合同或—类似条款的规定行使其权利以避免意外的阻碍 (例如，冰块、堵塞、劳工动乱、政府禁令、战争或类似战争行为)，则由此发生的所有额外费用应由买方承担，因为卖方的义务只限于订立通常的运输合同。

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.

销售合同的当事人往往希望明确卖方应在什么程度内订立运输合同，包括卸货费用由谁负担。由于当货物由通常的班轮运输时，这些费用一般包括在运费之内，因此，销售合同经常规定，货物必须由班轮运输或至少按“班轮条件”运输。有时在CFR或CIF术语后加上“卸到岸上(Landed)”。然而，最好不要在C组术语后使用缩写语，除非在有关行业中，该缩写语为合同当事人或适用的法律或行业惯例所明确理解和接受。

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.

具体而言，卖方不应当(在不改变C 组术语本质的情况下，实际上也不能够)承担任何保证货物抵达目的地的义务，因为在运输途中任何迟延的风险应由买方承担。因此，涉及时间的任何义务必须表明装船地或发货地，例如“装运(发货)不迟于……”。像“CFR 汉堡不迟于……”这样的一份协议属于用词不当，并会引起不同的解释。当事人的意思可能被认为是货物必须在规定的日期抵达汉堡，在这种情况下该合同不是装运合同而是到货合同；另一种可能的理解是，卖方发运货物的时间必须是使其在通常情况下能在规定的时间前抵达汉堡，除非发生意外事件耽误运输。

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.

在农矿产品贸易中，有时购买的货物正在海上运输途中，在这种情况下，贸易术语后应加上“在途(afloat)”一词。根据CFR和CIF术语，货物的灭失或损坏的风险这时已从卖方转移到买方，这就可能引起解释上的困难。一种可能是，维持CFR和CIF术语有关买卖双方风险划分的通常含义，即风险在装运时转移。这意味着买方也许不得不承担销售合同生效时已发生的事件的后果。另一种可能性是让风险的转移和合同订立的时间相一致。前一种可能性也许更切合实际，因为确定正在运输途中货物的状况往往是不可能的。鉴于这个原因，《一九八0 年联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第六十八条规定“如果情况表明有此需要，从货物交付给签发体现运输合同的单据的承运人时起，风险就由买方承担”，但是有一例外，即当“卖方知道或理应知道货物已经灭失或损坏，而不将这一事实告知买方”时。因此，CFR或CIF术语后加上“在途”一词的解释应取决于销售合同适用的法律。建议当事人弄清适用的法律及其可能导致的解决方法。如有疑问，当事人应在合同中加以明确规定。

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)”.

在实务中，交易方继续频繁使用C&F(或C and F，C+F)这样传统的术语。然而，在绝大多数情况下，交易方视这些传统术语等同于CFR。为了避免解释合同时的困难，交易方应使用CFR术语，因为CFR 是全球广泛接受的“成本加运费(……指定目的港)”术语的惟一的缩写。

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条款要求：只要卖方提供的运输单据(通常是提单)中援引了租船合同，例如，最常用的表达方式“所有其他条款(terms)和条件(conditions)均按租船合同”，这时卖方就有义务提供租船合同的副本。尽管签约人应该总是能够确知合同中所有条款的内容(最好是在订立合同时)，但是这种提供租船合同的做法带来了一些问题，尤其是在跟单信用证业务中。所以，在Incoterms 2000 中，删去了CFR和CIF术语下卖方要随运输单据提供租船合同副本的义务。

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.

虽然Incoterms 中A8 条款的目的在于保证卖方向买方提供“交货凭证”，但应该指出，这里强调的是只要卖方提供了“通常”的凭证，卖方就完成了这项义务。在CPT 和CIP 术语下，卖方要提供“通常的运输单据”，在CFR 和CIF 术语下，卖方要提供提单或海运单，运输单据必须是“清洁的”，即运输单据上不能出现声明货物和／或其包装有与合同不符的条款或批注。若单据中出现这样的条款或批注，那么这个单据就被认为是“不清洁的”，而在跟单信用证交易中则会被银行拒收。但是，一份运输单据，即使上面没有这样的条款或批注，对买方来说通常也不能成为对抗承运人的无可质疑的证据，证明货物在装运时是符合销售合同内容的。一般情况下，承运人会在运输单据的正面以标准文句指明，在运输单据中加入的细节 (particulars)是托运人的声明，因此货物情况只是“据称”如其添加的细节所述。承运人以此拒绝承担有关货物状况的责任。根据大多数援用的法律或原则，承运人必须至少使用合理的方法检验货物状况是否正确，否则对收货人负有责任。然而，在集装箱贸易中，承运人无从检查集装箱内货物，除非承运人负责将货物装入集装箱。

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.

涉及保险的术语只有两个，即CIF和CIP。在这两个术语下，卖方有义务为买方的利益办理保险。在其他情况下，则是由当事方自己决定是否要办理保险以及投保到什么程度。由于卖方要为买方的利益办理保险，卖方不一定知道买方的详细要求。根据由伦敦保险人协会(Institute of London Underwriters)拟定的《协会货物保险条款》(Institute Cargo Clauses)，(C)规定办理“最低程度”的保险，(B)规定办理中等程度保险， (A)规定办理最高险别。在CIF 术语下的农矿产品销售中，买方或许希望将在途货物卖给新的买方，而这个新的买方也许希望再将货物售出，所以，卖方不可能了解这些后继买方的保险要求。因此，在CIF术语下，

传统上选择最低程度的保险，但买方可以要求卖方办理附加保险。但最低保险对制成品货物的销售可能不太适宜，因为对制成品而言存在偷盗、不当搬运或保管的风险，要求为货物投保超过《协会货物保险条款》 (C)下“最低程度”的保险。由于CIP不同于CIF，一般不用于农矿产品的销售，如果在CIP 下采用最高险别而不是CIF 下的最低险别，将会是可行的。但若在CIF 和CIP 术语下对卖方办理货物保险义务的要求不同，则容易导致混乱。所以，这两个术语要求卖方只限于办理“最低程度”的货物保险。对于CIP 术语下的买方来说，注意到这一点是非常重要的。如果买方要求附加的险别，他可以与卖方协议由卖方办理或自

行安排办理更高的保险。在某些情况下，买方也许会要求获得比《协会货物保险条款》(A)更高的保险，比如战争险、动乱险、民变险、罢工或其他劳工动乱险。若买方希望卖方安排这样的保险，买方必须指示卖方，而卖方必须在可能,情况下负责安排这些保险。

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组术语与C组术语有着本质区别。根据D组术语，卖方负责将货物运至边境或进口国内的约定目的地或点。卖方必须承担货物运至该地前的全部风险和费用，因此，D组术语属于到货合同，而C组术语则属于离港(装运)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组术语下，除了DDP，卖方在目的地国交货时无须办理进口手续。

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.

传统的做法，在DEQ 术语下，卖方有义务办理货物的进口清关手续，因为货物需要搬运到码头，这样就进入了进口国。但是，由于大多数国家的清关手续发生了变化，现在由居住在该国的一方办理进口清关手续并交纳关税和其他费用更为合适。所以，DEQ术语有了一些改变，正如前面提到的FAS 术语的变化一样。DEQ 术语中的变化在序言中以黑体字标出。

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.

看来，很多国家使用一些没有收进Incoterms 中的贸易术语，尤其是在铁路运输中(如franco border，franco—frontiere，Frei Granze)等。然而，在这些术语下，通常并不想让卖方承担将货物运至边境前的货物灭失或损坏的风险。在这些情况下，最好使用CPT指明边境。另一方面，如果他们希望让卖方负担运输中的风险，使用指明边境的DAF术语将更合适。

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术语是在Incoterms l990中新加入的。当卖方准备在目的国交货但不办理进口手续、不交纳关税时，该术语就发挥了重要作用。在那些办理海关手续很困难而且耗时很久的国家里，卖方承担在完成海关清关手续后交货的义务将是有风险的。尽管按照DDU术语的B5和B6条款，买方要承担其未完成货物进口手续情况时可能发生的额外风险和费用，我们仍然建议在与办理货物进口手续可能会有困难的国家的交易中，卖方不使用DDU 术语。

10. THE EXPRESSION ‘NO OBLIGATION’

10.“无义务”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.

“卖方必须”和“买方必须”这样的表达方法体现出Incoterms 只涉及当事双方对对方承担的义务。这样，“无义务”一词则被用于一方对另一方不承担义务的情况。如果按各该术语中A3 条款卖方须安排并支付运输费用，则在B3 a)的“运输合同”项目下“无义务”的字样即规定了买方的地位。同样，当任何一方对对方都不承担义务时，在双方名下都会出现“无义务’一词，例如有关“保险”的情况。

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—种情况下，重要的是要指出，即使一方“无义务’为另一方履行某项任务，这并不意味着履行该任务不符合它的利益。例如，CFR的买方按照B4对卖方并无投保的责任，但很明显买方投保符合其利益，因为在该术语下按照A4 卖方也没有义务获取保险。

11. VARIANTS OF INCOTERMS

11．Incoterms的变体

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.

在实务中，当事双方经常在Incoterms术语基础上添加词句以求得比术语更精确的约定。需要强调的是， Incoterms对任何这种添加的内容不提供任何指导规定。这样，如果当事方无法依赖一个公认的行业惯例来解释其新增内容时，他们可能会由于无法就新增内容证明有一贯的理解而面临严重的问题。以常用的“FOB理舱”和“EXW 装车”为例，卖方的义务不仅被扩大至包括负担将货物分别装到船上或装上车辆的费用，而且也包括在装舱和装货期间货物意外的灭失或损坏的风险，这就无法在全世界达成—致的理解。由于上述原因，强烈建议当事双方明确表示他们是否只打算由卖方承担装舱和装车的任务及费用，还是卖方也需要承担装舱和装车全部结束之前的风险。对此Incoterms 并无答案。其结果，假如合同也未对双方意图加以明确的话，双方就将面临不必要的麻烦和费用了。

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.

尽管Incoterms 2000 未对许多这样的普遍使用的变体作出规定，某些术语的序言确实在提醒双方，如希望超出Incoterms 的规定来分配双方义务的话，需要使用特殊的合同条款。例如：

EXW  the added obligation for the seller to load the goods on the buyer’s collecting vehicle;

EXW 关于卖方将货物装上买方的运输工具的额外义务；

CIF/CIP  the buyer’s need for additional insurance;

CIF/CIP 关于买方安排货物额外保险的需要；

DEQ  the added obligation for the seller to pay for costs after discharge.

DEQ 关于卖方支付卸货之后的费用的额外义务。

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—些情况下，卖方和买方援引班轮和租船合同中的商业惯例。这样就需要明确地区分当事双方在运输合同中的义务和彼此在销售合同中的义务。但是，对于“班轮条件”(liner terms)和“终点站搬运费”(Terminal Handling Charges，THC)等表达法尚无权威解释。在这些条款下，费用的划分因地点的不同而不同，而且经常变化。建议当事方在销售合同中明确规定如何划分双方应承担的费用。

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.

在租船合同中经常使用的表达法如“FOB理舱”，“FOB理舱和平舱”等，有时被用在销售合同中以明确在FOB术语下卖方要在何种程度内负担理舱和平舱的义务。当使用此类附加语时，有必要在销售合同中明确额外的义务只限于费用还是包括费用和风险。

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，我们尽量使Incoterms反映出最通行的国际商业做法。然而，在某些情况下，尤其是当Incoterms 2000与Incoterms l990有不同之处时，当事方也许会希望以不同方式使用贸易术语。在贸易术语的序言中，以“但是”作句子的开头专门提醒注意这些可能性。

12. CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OR OF A PARTICULAR TRADE

12. 港口或特定行业的习惯做法

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.

因为贸易术语要在不同行业和不同地区使用，对双方的义务不能总是规定得很精确。因此，在某种程度上，有必要参考港口的或特定行业的习惯做法，或当事方在先前的交易中已经建立的习惯做法(参见《一九八0年联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第九条)。对于卖方和买方而言，当协商销售合同时，使自己及时了解这些习惯做法，并在不能确定时，通过在销售合同中适当的条款以澄清当事方的法律地位是值得推荐的做法。在具体合同中这些特别条款将取代或改变Incoterms规定的任何解释规则。

13. THE BUYER'S OPTIONS AS TO THE PLACE OF SHIPMENT

13．买方关于装运地的选择权

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).

在一些情况下，在订立销售合同时可能无法准确地确定卖方将货物交运的点(Point))甚至地点 (Place)。比如，在这一阶段，可能只约定在“某一范围”或一个较大的地点，如海港。在这种情况下，通常规定买方随后有权利或有义务在这一范围或地点内指定更精确的地点。若如上文所述买方有义务提供精确点而他没有做到，则买方就要承担由这种未尽义务而造成的任何额外的风险和费用(如所有术语中B5／B7 条款规定)。除此之外，若买方没能使用自己的权利指示交货点，则卖方可以选择在对卖方最合适的点交货(FCA A4)。

14. CUSTOMS CLEARANCE

14. 清关

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.

“清关”这个词已经造成了一些误解，因此，现在已明确，无论何时当卖方或买方承担将货物运过出口国或进口国的海关的义务时，这项义务不仅包括交纳关税和其他费用，而且包括履行一切与货物通过海关有关的行政事务以及向当局提供必要信息并交纳相关费用。在某些地区，如欧盟内部或其他自由贸易区，当不再有交纳关税的义务和对进出口的限制时，有人认为使用规定办理货物清关手续义务的术语是不恰当的 (尽管这是错误的认识)。为此，“在需要办理海关手续时(where applicable)”的用语被加入了相关术语的A2和B2、A6和B6条款，这样，在无须办理海关手续的情况下，使用该用语就可以避免模棱两可。

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.

清关手续由住所在该国的一方或其代表办理通常是可取的。因此，出口商通常应办理出口清关手续，进口商应办理进口清关手续。

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(要求买方办理货物出口清关手续)和DEQ(要求卖方办理进口清关手续)与上述原则不一致。Incoterms 2000的FAS和DEQ术语分别将办理出口和进口清关手续的义务规定给卖方和买方，但表示卖方最小义务的术语EXW却未被改动(买方仍承担办理出口清关的义务)。DDP术语的字面含义即完税后交货(Delivered Duty Paid)，采用该术语自然表示卖方明确同意完成该术语的义务，即办理进口清关手续并交纳全部相关费用。

15. PACKAGING

15.包装

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”).

大多数情况下，当事人事先知道货物安全运至目的地需要何种包装。但是，由于卖方包装货物的义务可能因具体的运输方式和期限而大相径庭，因而有必要规定卖方有义务使货物的包装适合运输方式的要求，但只限于在订立销售合同前已经知道有关运输的情况(参阅《一九八0 年联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第三十五条一款和第三十五条二款b 项规定，即货物包装必须“适用于订立合同时曾明示或默示地通知卖方的任何特定目的，除非情况表明买方并不依赖卖方的技能和判断力，或者这种依赖是不合理的)。

16. INSPECTION OF GOODS

16. 货物检验

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.

在许多情况下，人们会建议买方在卖方把货物交付运输前或交付运输时安排货物检验(称为“装运前检验”)。

除非合同另有规定，买方应承担检验费用，这种检验是为了他自身利益而安排的。但是，若进行的检验是

为了使卖方履行在其本国适用于出口货物的任何强制性规定，则卖方应支付检验费用，除非使用的是EXW

术语，这时买方应负担检验费用。

17. MODE OF TRANSPORT AND THE APPROPRIATE INCOTERMS 2000

17. 运输方式和相应的Incoterms术语

Any mode of transport

适用于任何运输方式

Group E E组

EXW Ex ‘works (… named place) 工厂交货（……指定地点）

Group F F组

FCA Free Carrier (… named place) FCA 货交承运人（……指定地点）

Group C C组

CPT Carriage Paid To (… named place of destination) CPT 运费付至（……指定目的地）

CIP Carriage and Insurance Paid To (… named place of destination) CIP 运费、保险费付至（……指定目的地）

Group D D组

DAF Delivered At Frontier (… named place) DAF 边境交货（……指定地点）

DDU Delivered Duty Unpaid (… named place of destination) DDU未完税交货（……指定目的地）

DDP Delivered Duty Paid (… named place of destination) DDU 完税交货（……指定目的地）

Maritime and inland waterway transport only

只适用于海运及内河运输

Group F F组

FAS Free Alongside Ship (… named port of shipment) FAS 船边交货（……指定装运港）

FOB Free on Board (… named port of shipment) FOB 船上交货（……指定装运港）

Group C C组

CFR Cost and Freight (… named port of destination) CFR 成本加运费（……指定目的港）

CIF Cost, Insurance and Freight (… named port of destination) CIF 成本、保险费加运费（……指定目的港）

Group D D组

DES Delivered Ex Ship (… named port of destination) DES 目的港船上交货（……指定目的港）

DEQ Delivered Ex Quay (… named port of destination) DEQ 目的港码头交货（……指定目的港）

18. THE RECOMMENDED USE

18. 推荐使用

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.

在某些情况下，序言推荐使用或者不使用某个术语。注意这一点在选择FCA和FOB时尤其重要。遗憾的是，商人们依然不适当地使用FOB，这使卖方在将货物交给买方指定的承运人之后依然会遇到风险。FOB仅在下列情况下适用，即当卖方只打算越过船舷交货，不管怎么样要交到船上，而不是将货物交给承运人以使货物能被继续运输和装载到船上，例如装到集装箱内或装上卡车等所谓集装运输工具上。所以，前言中有强烈的警告，若当事方无意超过船舷交货则不应使用该术语。

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.

也会出现这样的情况，即当买卖双方考虑使用其他运输方式时却错误地使用了适合于海运的术语。这将会使卖方处于不利的处境，即无法完成向买方提交适当单据的义务(如提单、海运单或有同等作用的电子讯息)。第17节中的图表显示了不同运输方式适用的Incoterms 2000的术语，而且，各个术语的序言也提示该术语是适用于所有运输方式或仅适用于海运。

19. THE BILL OF LADING AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

19.提单和电子商务

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:

传统做法，在CFR和CIF术语下，装船提单是卖方应提供的惟一可接受的单据，提单起到了三个重要的

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

·将货物交付至船上的证明；

·运输合同的证明；

·一种通过将纸面单据(paper document)交给另一方而将在途货物的权利转移给另一方的方式。

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.

除提单外的其他运输单据可以完成上述三项作用的前两项，但它们却无法控制货物在目的地交货或使买方能够通过将纸面单据交付给其买方而卖出在途货物。而其他运输单据则将指明在目的地有权接受货物的当事方的名字。为了保证在目的地能够向承运人提取货物，拥有提单是必要的，这就使用电子通讯方式取代提单变得尤其困难。

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，习惯上签发数份正本提单，这时，买方或按其指示向卖方付款的银行，确信所有正本都已由卖方提交(所谓“全套”)至关重要。这也是ICC 有关跟单信用证的规则(即《跟单信用证统一规则》，在Incoterms2000出版时其版本为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.

运输单据不仅必须证明货物已经交付承运人，而且要证明在承运人能够确定的范围内货物被收到时状况良好。在运输单据中任何表示货物并非呈良好状况的批注将会使该单据成为“不清洁”单据，这样的单据根据UCP将无法接受。

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.

尽管提单具有特定的法律性质，但预计在不远的将来会被电子方式替代。Incoterms 1990 充分估计了这种可以预期的发展。根据A8条款，若当事方同意以电子方式通讯，则可以用具有同等作用的电子讯息取代纸面运输单据。这些电子讯息可以被直接或经由提供增值服务的第三方传送至有关当事人。一种第三方可以提供的有用的服务是登记提单的一系列持有人。提供这种服务的系统，如BOLERO(提单电子登记组织)的服务，或许需要得到像《国际海运委员会电子提单一九九0 年规则》第十六条、第十七条和《一九九六年UNCITRAL电子商务示范法》那样的法律规范和原则的进一步支持。

20. NON-NEGOTIABLE TRANSPORT DOCUMENTS INSTEAD OF BILLS OF LADING

20. 不可转让的运输单据替代提单

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.

近几年，简化单据的做法取得了很大进展。提单经常被不可转让的运输单据所代替，它类似于海运以外的其他运输方式所使用的运输单据。这些单据被称为“海运单”、“班轮运单”、“货运收据”或其他名称。使用这些不可转让单据也无不可，但当买方希望通过提交单据给新的买方来出售在途货物时就不行了。为了使出售在途货物成为可能，有必要在CFR和CIF术语下保留卖方提供提单的义务。然而，如合同当事人知道买方不打算销售在途货物，他们可以达成明确协议来免除卖方提供提单的义务，或者在不需要提供提单时采用CPT和CIP 这两种术语。

21. THE RIGHT TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CARRIER

21. 对承运人给予指示的权利

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组术语下，买方支付货款时应确信卖方收款后无权就货物的处置对承运人作出新的指示。有些用于特殊运输方式(空运、公路或铁路)的运输单据通过向买方交付特定的运单正本或两联中的一联，使买方有排除卖方对承运人作出新指示的可能性。但在海运中用以替代提单的运输单据通常并不包含这种“阻止”功能。国际海事委员会为弥补这一缺陷，引入了《海运单统一规则》，使当事方可以加入—“无处置权”条款，卖方据此放弃指示承运人向其他人或在运单中指定地点之外的地点交货的权利。

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:

若合同当事人愿意在相互间发生争议时提交 ICC 仲裁，则应在合同(或当没有单独的合同文本时，在达成协议的相互往来函电)中确切、清楚地约定采用ICC 仲裁。合同中或与之有关的来往函电中订入一种或几种Incoterms 术语本身并不构成采用ICC 仲裁的协议。ICC 在此推荐下列标准ICC 仲裁条款：

“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.”

“与本合同有关的一切争议应根据ICC 仲裁规则，由根据该规则指定的一名或几名仲裁员最终裁决。”