Case of dispute over entrustment contract between Taicang Company and Shanghai agency Co., LTD

[Case classification] : entrustment contract disputes

[Commissioned time] : March 2015

【 Brief introduction 】

The plaintiff entrusts a third party to provide customs clearance and domestic transportation services for imported goods, and the third party, after accepting the above-mentioned entrustment of the plaintiff, entrusts an outsider to provide relevant services. From July to September 2012, the plaintiff entrusted a third party to provide customs clearance and tax payment services for the goods under three contracts numbered WC-××××1, WC-××× 3 and WC-×××× ×7 (hereinafter referred to as "contested contracts"), and the total import duty and import value-added tax to be paid for the contested contracts amounted to 72 percent respectively. 280.14 yuan, 28,555.59 yuan, 28,160.11 yuan, a total of 128,995.84 yuan. In September 2012, the plaintiff respectively applied to the bank for issuing three bank drafts (hereinafter referred to as "contested drafts") indicating the aforesaid contract number and the amount of tax, and delivered the contested drafts to a third party for payment of tax, and the third party informed the plaintiff that it had delivered the contested drafts to the sub-trustee to pay tax for the plaintiff. On September 30, 2012, the defendant informed the plaintiff that the third party entrusted the defendant to provide relevant freight forwarding services for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff first learned that the sub-trustee was the defendant in this case. On the same day, the defendant also informed the plaintiff that the disputed draft was misappropriated by a third party, and the defendant did not receive it, so the defendant could not pay taxes to the customs for the plaintiff on the disputed contract. In order to complete customs clearance of the contested contract in a timely manner, the original and the defendant signed a Memorandum on October 7, 2012, stating that for the above reasons, the plaintiff agreed to pay 128,995.84 yuan of taxes under the contested contract to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, and to pay 72 yuan to the defendant in the form of transfer on October 10, 2012. $280.14 and $28,160.11 paid to the defendant on October 11 of the same year $28,555.59. Later, the plaintiff investigated and learned that the bill in question was not misappropriated by a third party, but was used by the defendant to pay taxes for other companies. After the defendant receives the disputed draft, the plaintiff has completed the tax payment obligation, the defendant is obligated to pay the tax on behalf of the defendant on the grounds that the defendant has not received the disputed draft to defraud the plaintiff to pay the tax to it again has no legal basis, so the plaintiff litigates to the court.

【 Lawyer analysis 】

In this case, the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the tax of 128,995.84 yuan for the reason that the bill in question was used by the defendant, and the plaintiff and the defendant in this case both confirmed that the bill in question was misappropriated by the third party in this case, which is not the same fact. As to whether there is a focus of dispute between the original and the defendant, according to the law, with the consent of the trustee, the agent may delegate. Where the subentrustment is agreed, the principal may directly instruct the sub-trustee in respect of the entrusted matter, and the trustee shall be liable only for the selection of the sub-trustee and the instructions given to the sub-trustee. In this case, from October 2011 to October 7, 2012, there was a freight forwarding contract relationship between the plaintiff and the third party, and between the third party and the defendant, respectively, and the entrusted content was to provide customs clearance and domestic transportation services. In the trial, the plaintiff admitted that it knew that the third party would delegate the contract when it established the freight forwarding contract with the third party, and when the defendant accepted the third party's entrustment to provide customs clearance and domestic transportation services for the plaintiff's import business, it should have known that the plaintiff was the third party's principal. Both the plaintiff and the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff knew that the third party was the defendant on September 30, 2012. And the defendant actually performs the entrustment matters, it can be determined that the plaintiff agrees to the third party to delegate the relevant services to the defendant, and the defendant also accepts the entrustment. There is a subentrustment relationship between the original and the defendant, so the goods under the contract are subject to the above legal relationship. The third party has customs clearance, domestic transportation and tax payment obligations to the plaintiff for the goods under the contested contract, and the defendant also has the above obligations to the third party, because there is a subcommission relationship between the original and the defendant, and the freight forwarding contract relationship between the third party and the defendant directly restricts the original and the defendant, so the plaintiff has the right to exercise the rights of the third party to the defendant. According to the ascertained facts, the plaintiff delivered the bill of exchange to a third party, and after the third party delivered the bill to the defendant, the plaintiff and the third party both completed the tax payment obligation, and the defendant was obligated to pay the tax under the contract of dispute for the plaintiff after receiving the bill of exchange delivered by the third party. After receiving the disputed draft, the defendant failed to fulfill the obligation to pay taxes on behalf of the plaintiff, and used the disputed draft to pay taxes for outsiders and other businesses of the plaintiff without the consent of the plaintiff, and collected 128,995.84 yuan of taxes paid by the plaintiff on the grounds that it did not receive the disputed draft delivered by a third party.

【 Verdict 】

Through the lawyer Wang Zhen's representation, the court finally supported the plaintiff's claim.