## Facts

- Inter-Korea Corporation agreed to ship plastic bags from Korea to Plastique Tags, Inc., for delivery in New York to Plastique’s customer, Gift Box Corporation of America.
- Inter-Korea loaded and sealed a single container and represented it contained 5,600 boxes totaling 4,437,500 plastic bags.
- Asia Trans Line, a non-vessel-operating common carrier, issued a bill of lading stating “SHIPPER’S LOAD & COUNT” and “SAID TO CONTAIN” the stated quantity.
- Asia Trans contracted with DSR Senator Lines, the ocean carrier, to transport the sealed container on the M/V Cho Yang World; Senator issued a second bill of lading with materially identical “shipper’s load and count” terms.
- The container was transported to New York and released by Senator with the seal intact to a trucking company, which delivered it to Gift Box.
- Gift Box broke the seal, inventoried the contents, and reported a shortage of 2,618,500 bags; Gift Box refused to pay Plastique because of the shortfall.
- Plastique sued the carriers (not the shipper) under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) for the cargo shortfall.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the carriers; Plastique appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a consignee establishes a prima facie COGSA case for a cargo shortage when the container was sealed, the bills of lading were qualified by “shipper’s load and count,” and the carrier delivered the container with the seal intact.
2. Whether “shipper’s load and count” bills of lading for sealed-container cargo constitute sufficient proof that the carrier actually received the quantity stated.
3. Whether the intact seal on delivery defeats an inference that the loss occurred during the carriers’ custody for purposes of the prima facie COGSA showing.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the carriers.
- Plastique failed, as a matter of law, to establish the prima facie COGSA elements that the carriers received the full claimed quantity and delivered it short.
- The “shipper’s load and count” language in the bills of lading, combined with sealed delivery, meant the bills reflected the shipper’s declaration rather than the carriers’ verification of quantity.
- Delivery with an intact seal provided no basis to infer that any shortage occurred while the container was in the carriers’ custody.
- Because Plastique did not meet its threshold burden, the court did not reach carrier defenses under COGSA.

## Legal Principles

- Under COGSA, the cargo claimant bears the initial burden to make a prima facie case by showing the cargo was delivered to the carrier in good order (including the claimed quantity) and was discharged damaged or short.
- For sealed-container shipments, a bill of lading qualified by “shipper’s load and count” is not, by itself, affirmative proof that the carrier actually received the stated contents or quantity.
- An intact seal upon delivery is strong evidence that an alleged shortage did not occur during the carrier’s custody, absent additional proof of loss while in transit.
- Summary judgment is proper when the nonmovant cannot produce evidence creating a genuine dispute on an element for which it bears the burden of proof.

## Conclusion

The court held that a COGSA shortage claim fails when the claimant relies primarily on “shipper’s load and count” bills of lading for a sealed container delivered with its seal intact, because those facts do not prove the carrier received—and then lost—the missing goods.


Plastique Tags, Inc. v. Asia Trans Line, Inc., 83 F.3d 1367 (11th Cir. 1996)