## Facts

- Jain Irrigation System, Ltd. (Jain) purchased 700 metric tons of resin from Chemcolit, Inc. (Chemcolit).
- Chemcolit contracted with Ocean Knight Shipping, Inc. (Ocean Knight) to transport the shipment by sea from Houston, Texas, to Mumbai, India.
- Chemcolit prepared the shipment by loading the resin into containers, then sealing and locking the containers before tendering them for carriage.
- Ocean Knight issued bills of lading to Chemcolit that described the cargo based on Chemcolit’s information and stated that the containers were “said to contain” the described goods.
- The sealed containers were loaded onto vessels and transported to India.
- When the containers arrived in India and were opened, they contained soil, lumps of chemicals, and other waste material—not the resin Jain purchased and not what the bills of lading described.
- Jain rejected the shipment and sued Chemcolit and Ocean Knight, alleging (among other things) that Ocean Knight was liable for damages caused by the misdescription of the goods on the bills of lading.
- Ocean Knight moved for summary judgment, contending that it was not liable for misdescription because the bills of lading used “said to contain” language and the containers were shipper-sealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an ocean carrier may be held liable to the buyer/consignee for misdescription of cargo in a bill of lading when the shipment moved in shipper-loaded, shipper-sealed containers and the bill of lading states the containers are “said to contain” the shipper’s described goods.
2. Whether summary judgment is proper when the carrier’s only description of the container contents is based on the shipper’s statement and the carrier had no meaningful chance to verify what was inside the sealed containers.

## Decision

- The court considered Ocean Knight’s motion for summary judgment on Jain’s misdescription theory based on the bills of lading.
- The court granted summary judgment for Ocean Knight.
- The court determined that, given the shipper-controlled loading and sealing and the “said to contain” qualification, Ocean Knight was not responsible for the inaccuracy in the stated contents of the sealed containers on the record presented.
- Ocean Knight was dismissed from the case to the extent Jain’s claim sought to impose liability on Ocean Knight for misdescription of the container contents in the bills of lading.

## Legal Principles

- When a bill of lading for a sealed container states the cargo is “said to contain” particular goods, the carrier is generally treated as repeating the shipper’s description rather than making a promise that the described goods are actually inside the sealed container.
- When the shipper loads and seals containers and the carrier does not have a practical way to confirm the contents, the shipper bears the risk that the description of the contents is incorrect, absent proof of carrier wrongdoing tied to the misdescription.
- A plaintiff opposing summary judgment must point to evidence creating a genuine factual dispute on an element needed to impose carrier liability (for example, that the carrier had the ability and duty to verify the contents, or that the carrier made an unqualified representation about the contents despite lack of knowledge).

## Conclusion

The court granted Ocean Knight’s summary-judgment motion because the shipment moved in containers sealed by Chemcolit and the bills of lading described the contents only as “said to contain” the shipper-provided description, so Ocean Knight could not be held liable to Jain merely for the discrepancy between the billed description and the waste material found inside the sealed containers on arrival in India.


Jain Irrigation System, Ltd. v. Chemcolit, Inc., 2000 WL 1802069 (2000)