Case study: HM Revenue Customs Businesslink: International
View PDF | Print View
by: Guest
Total views: 183
Word Count: 3693
Category: Award category 3) Central e-Government excellence: Team
Sponsored by KPMG
(Proven team-working or partnership activity which has delivered more than the sum of the parts).
International Trade Single Window (ITSW) is a website covering regulatory requirements for international trade. It is a cross-government collaboration between HMRC, Defra and BERR with delivery through businesslink.gov.uk. The website converges previously fragmented and disjointed information from government and trade associations into easy-to-understand guides and interactive tools.
ITSW enables efficiency gains for the 150,000 UK businesses involved in, or the many considering international trade by reducing time spent searching for information, leaving them to focus on strategic and commercial considerations.
It ultimately enhances the government
UKTI and HMRC advice services now use it for reference when responding to queries.
This is the first time information relating to international trade has been available to UK businesses in one place. By working closely with partners and stakeholders, including traders themselves, the service improves the service government provides and satisfies the basic needs of traders, providing them with simpler, more efficient means of accessing and submitting information. One trader discovered they could save
HMRC systems.
HMRC and Defra benefit through time saving as a result of improved and automated processes and interface with current department systems such as CHIEF. Easy access to consistent information is expected to translate into reduced levels of inadvertent non-compliance, leaving the government to focus on those traders that actively try to avoid regulations. This simplification of access to government services fulfils the requirement for Transformational Government.
In addition to businesses and trade associations, large commercial organisations have added links from their own site to the ITSW content and tools. eBay will add the
The BCC is a strong advocate of international trade and the importance of simplifying regulation for small businesses in particular. We were delighted to support the International Trade Single Window project as it further helps with both of these issues. Businesses can get their hands on a lot of highly relevant information in one place from the many government agencies and departments that they would otherwise have to approach individually. The ITSW will have a very positive impact on international trade.
Suppliers: Reading Room did the initial design and branding development for the portal.
BT, working in conjunction with project managers at the relevant government departments and agencies, design, develop and test the ITSW portal.
IBM have designed and developed a system that sends electronic control decisions to customs from specific Defra systems. This will allow shipments of certain goods to be cleared automatically without the need for the trader to provide paper documentation.
Sweet and Maxwell developed the plain English guidance to the specification of businesslink.gov.uk
Related links:
www.businesslink.gov.uk/internationaltrade
UK public sector web, ICT e-Government services. The Awards were presented on 22nd January 2008 at the Dorchester by Minister Gillian Merron MP. Joining the awards dinner via video link, Prime Minister the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP praised the nominees, saying: I commend you all for your initiative, your drive and your commitment to providing the public with the very best.
Platinum sponsor is KPMG
Shandong Provincial Higher People s Court
Civil verdict
(2000) Lu 292 by the end of the first word Appellant (trial accused): Beijing Sports Bowling Equipment Co., Ltd., shelter: Beijing San Huan Road on the 11th.
Legal representative: Shao-yuan, managers
Representations: Xiao-Wei Chen, M, May 27, 1968 birth, Beijing Sports Bowling Equipment Co. vice president.
Overruled (the trial plaintiff): Yizhong (Qingdao) Ltd. development of the sports industry, home: the city of Qingdao Haier high-tech Industrial Park Road middle.
Legal representative: Liu Qing, and chairman of the board.
Representations: Lan-zhou, Shandong Zhengyang law firm.
Representations: regular Haifeng, Shandong Zhengyang law firm.
Appellant Beijing Sports Bowling Equipment Co. for the purchase and sale of a contract dispute case against Qingdao City Intermediate People s Court (2000) by the beginning of the word Green No. 23 civil judgments,
Museum formed a collegiate bench in accordance with the law, a public hearing the case. Appellant Beijing Sports Limited bowling equipment representations Xiao-Wei Chen, overruled Yizhong (Qingdao) Ltd. development of the sports industry representations to the Qing Lan Chau, often Haifeng appearance participate in legal proceedings. The case is now before the end.
The trial court found that on December 25, 1998, signed the purchase and sale of the plaintiff and the defendant, Brunswick bowling equipment sales contract , the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the defendant s 12 Brunswick bowling equipment, the equipment to auction goods, the defendant is responsible for installation, the total price of 3.38 million yuan, and the place of delivery Qingdao (by the plaintiff bears the burden of freight), the time for delivery within 100 days of receipt of deposit; mode of payment for the contract is signed within three days from the date the plaintiff first delivery deposit 1.352 million yuan (contract 40% of the total), the Shanghai Sports cargo warehouse when the purchase price paid 1.859 million yuan (55% of total contracts), the balance paid after acceptance of the 1.69 million yuan (5% of the total contract). On the day the contract is signed, the plaintiff bank drafts to the accused delivered 1.352 million yuan deposit, the defendant to the plaintiff issued a receipt. June 21, 1999, the defendant to the plaintiff should be April 5, 1999 payment of the contract sum of money because the second letter to the plaintiffs, call for the lifting of the purchase and sales contracts. In June 23, the plaintiff to the defendant, he or she does not agree to rescind, and that negotiations continue to fulfill the contract. In July 1999, another defendant, the bowling equipment sold to others. The defendant was formerly known as the Beijing Sports Centre bowling equipment, September 23, 1999 is for the name change.
The trial court held that the plaintiff and the defendant signed the purchase and sale of bowling equipment contracts, in addition to the deposit provisions null and void, for the valid contract. Terms of the purchase and sales contracts deposit, the two sides agreed the amount of violation of the law on guarantees of deposit main contract amount shall not exceed 20 per cent of the amount of money, so the provision invalid. The plaintiff in the performance of delivery deposit money, not in the contract period to the second payment procedures, and consultations for delivery of the goods, a preliminary default plaintiff is at fault; defendant charged the plaintiff s deposit money, in the performance of the contract period, whether or not to continue to carry out the contract, the consultation between the two sides failed circumstances, the unauthorized sale of the subject matter, which could not fulfil the contract, with the main fault, should bear corresponding responsibilities. In addition, the purchase and sale contract, although the original, the defendant agreed for the delivery Qingdao, the plaintiff bears the burden of freight, but the two sides agreed on the delivery method is not clear, thus the two sides have differences of opinion; event of a dispute, the two sides did not reach an agreement views of this, the original, the defendant in both parties have fault, it should be their responsibility to undertake corresponding fault. Therefore, the plaintiff that the defendant double the return of 2.704 million yuan deposit at the request of hospital not support the defendant not advocate the return of the deposit the views of our hospital would not accept. In light of the above, the original, the defendant signed the purchase and sales contracts should be lifted, the defendant should be money collected 1.352 million yuan return of the plaintiffs, and in accordance with the provisions of the People s Bank of China enterprises liquidity loan interest rates over the same period, the amount paid during the occupation of the plaintiff s interest . In accordance with the PRC Economic Contract Law Article 6, Article 7, paragraph 1, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, Article 29, Article 32, the People s Republic of the law on guarantees the provisions of Article 91, and the verdict : First, the defendant Beijing Sports Bowling Equipment Co., Ltd. refund plaintiff Yizhong (Qingdao) Ltd. development of the sports industry, purchase equipment bowling 1.352 million yuan. Second, the defendant Beijing Sports Bowling Equipment Co., Ltd. to pay the plaintiff occupied Yizhong (Qingdao) Ltd. development of the sports industry, equipment purchased during the bowling of interest (the interest of the enterprises in accordance with the provisions of the People s Bank of liquidity lending rate over the same period of balance, since December 16, 1998 to calculate the provisional entry into force of the judgement). In the judgement of the money within 10 days after the entry into force of executing. If the overdue payment, doubled during the delay payment of interest on debt. Case processing fees 23,530 yuan, 11,765 yuan burden on the plaintiff, the defendant burden of 11,765 yuan.
Appellant Beijing Sports Bowling Equipment Co., Ltd. said the appeal against the trial verdict, the deposit terms of the contract total amount of more than 20 per cent of the effective part, did not have overruled the April 5, 1999 and payment to the Shanghai Sports warehouses Cargo constitute a breach of contract, our performance in the contracting process and does not exist in breach of the right to request the return of the company Yizhong effective deposit some 676,000 yuan; deposit terms of the contract more than 20 per cent of the total amount of the invalid, but can be returned as an advance . Request in accordance with the law revision.
Overruled Yizhong (Qingdao) Sports Development Limited reply that according to Article 10 of the contract and the provisions of Article 15, the appellant has first shipment obligations, and the appellant failure to fulfil the obligation, in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Law, overruled the exercise of the right of first to defend the right to refuse to carry out the appellant s request. As it should be overruled in the appellant on April 5, 1999 End of prepaid after their delivery, the content of the contract and refused to deliver misleading, and instead will be sold to a third cargo, and announced that unilateral cancellation, which is a typical non-performance debt default form, the appellant should be to double the return of deposit. Just ask the court to sentence according to law.
According to the appellant s appeal and overruled the reply, the case both parties the focus of controversy is two-fold: First, the validity of the contract in advance to the second is a party which does not fulfil contractual obligations, the application of object deposit penalty is the appellant or overruled.
On the validity of the contract deposit, in the course of the trial, overruled agree with the appellant s view, the contract deposit does not exceed 20 per cent of the total amount of effective, more than 20 per cent of the void.
On which parties do not fulfil contractual debt issue, the two sides put forward their ideas and evidence are as follows:
Appellant advocate, in accordance with Article 15 and Article 9 of the contract freight overruled by the burden , should be overruled on April 5, 1999 and before payments to Shanghai Sports Freight Warehouse. The appellant and to provide the two sides in the June 21, 1999, June 23, June 24, June 25, September 20 between the six counterparts overruled by fax proof of payment and shipment is recognized throughout, and never raised objections. Overruled do not fulfil the obligations of payment and shipping, have no right to demand the return of part of the effective delivery of the deposit.
Overruled that, in Article 15 of the contract that the goods in Shanghai, 9 shows that the place of delivery in Qingdao, the combination of these two principles, the case can be concluded for the delivery mode of delivery or shipment agents, the appellant should be shipped to the goods from Shanghai Qingdao, and to complete delivery obligation. Article 9 of the contract agreed on the freight overruled by the commitment and should be overruled could not prove that their own delivery, shipment or delivery agent can be bought from the commitment by the freight. If the question is, freight must be bought by side themselves, without the need to be agreed in the contract, no agreement to the place of delivery Qingdao; contract makes it clear that the 10th time for delivery within 100 days of receipt of deposit, delivery methods delivery agent for the appellant or consignments, therefore, the appellant should be received within 100 days, the deposit is April 4, 1999 delivered to fulfil the obligations of Qingdao, but in the actual performance, the appellant failed to fulfil its obligations; According to the contract Article 10 and Article 15 of the provisions of the performance of the contract is the first order overruled deposit, followed by the appellant loading for shipment or delivery procedures, and then overruled the second loan payment, the appellant bears The first shipment or delivery obligations appellant, in the absence of procedures for cargo overruled circumstances require payment overruled defence of the right to exercise the right to perform first, second thought. Article 15 of the contract agreement when the freight payment, the two sides at the same time fulfil the case, overruled at the same time have the right to exercise the right to defence, as the appellant did not fulfil a contractual debt, deposit penalties should be targeting the application of the appellant, appellant should double the return deposit. The appellant between the two sides of the six exchanges fax, in Testimony by the court, without objection overruled.
Museum has examined, December 25, 1998, the appellant and overruled signed Brunswick bowling equipment sales contracts. In the contract before signing the contract object placed in Shanghai, Shanghai is overruled read goods after signing the contract. Contractual overruled the purchase of the appellant s 12 bowling, the total price of 3.38 million yuan. Article 9 of Qingdao agreed to the place of delivery, freight overruled by the commitment to Article 10 agreement for the delivery time within 100 days of receipt of deposit; Article 15 agreement method of payment for the contract within three days from the date of first Fudingjin 1.352 million yuan (40% of the total contract), the Shanghai Sports cargo warehouse at the purchase price paid 1.859 million yuan (55 per cent of total contract), after the acceptance of the payment balance of 169,000 yuan (5% of the total contract). On the day of signing the contract, overruled the way to bank drafts to the appellant delivered 1.352 million yuan deposit, overruled the appellant to produce the receipt. June 21, 1999 overruled by fax to the appellant said, since April 5 has been urged repeatedly overruled by the contract in the April 5, 1998 second loan to pay 1.859 million yuan, but it was appellant delay payment to terminate, for breach of contract responsibility overruled by the same year on June 23 overruled reply that the contract does not provide in its April 5, 1999 before the second payment T paid by the appellant to rescind the law have no hope that the appellant withdrawal of the declaration, the performance of the contract in consultation with the problems in the same year on June 24, the appellant Fax, according to the contract should be overruled in 1999 In early April before the second sum payment, the appellant, Fang Zhu Jie Zeng, in early April 1999 has been repeatedly urging overruled performance of the contract, both overruled not perform would not reply to the appellant could not be arranged matters , the appellant also hope that through joint consultation to properly handle this matter; the same year on June 25 overruled Fax, Mr. Zhu Zenjie since April 1999 has indeed come to call many times, but has not made payments shipments request. I consider that the company is not yet perfect conditions on site, if the consignor immediately, I am afraid, will cause damage to equipment. Therefore suggested that consideration and accept the following: our first payment within 5 1 million yuan, shipments under the contract, filled the second sum, delivery time our notice; the same year on September 20 the parties fax sent to the other party, overruled on June 25 called on bowling of views on dealing with the appellant has not been back to the appellant reply as soon as possible; that the appellant should be overruled under the purchase and sales contracts and the provisions of relevant laws commitment liability for breach of contract and, based on this, please sent to Beijing as soon as possible joint study other matters.
Hospital identified other facts and the trial court to identify consensus.
Hospital that:
Nbsp1. Deposit on the validity of the contract, the parties have reached a consensus, it was agreed that the main contract deposit amount more than 20 per cent of the total amount of the invalid, the two sides of this view with security with the relevant provisions of our hospital to be recognized. Thus, the case of the purchase price as deposit amount of 676,000 yuan, has been overruled delivery of the remaining 676,000 yuan should be identified as Yufuhuokuan.
Nbsp2. On which parties do not fulfil contractual obligations, our hospital that is not overruled fulfil contractual payment obligations. The reason is: First, in accordance with the contract on the Shanghai Sports warehouse freight, freight overruled by the commitment to the place of delivery in Qingdao agreement, the case will be shipped goods from Shanghai to Qingdao burden of the obligations by the appellant. Otherwise, if the question should be overruled goods, freight burden not overruled by special agreement, the place of delivery for Shanghai instead of Qingdao. Contract with Article 15, Article 10, the performance of the contract order of the case are as follows: First, overruled delivery deposit Secondly, the appellant paid freight at the same time overruled second loan, and the appellant s delivery obligations and overruled second loan payment obligations to each other conditions shall be in the April 5, 1999 prior to discharge; again, the appellant delivery; Finally, after passing the acceptance, overruled pay the full purchase price. Fax from the two-way, the appellant requested overruled on April 5, 1999 payment is the second loan, never overruled by the appellant Unfilled hence its refusal to pay the defence. And the obligation to pay and the delivery obligations of the parties is the main contract contractual obligations, the price of a relationship between the two, and the obligation to pay and the delivery does not constitute an obligation on the price, so that even if overruled by the kind of defence or as a respondent in the alleged overruled the exercise of the Contract Law by the provisions of the contract fulfilled in the process of defence or defence of the right to perform at the same time. Secondly, in the past contractual delivery, the second tranche of the purchase price paid after the deadline on June 25 overruled by the company are still on site conditions are not perfect, I am afraid that if the consignor immediately will cause damage to equipment, companies can pay within five days to 1 million yuan, shipments under the contract, filled the second payment, delivery time and so its notification. Third, the contract is signed before the subject of the contract has been placed in Shanghai, overruled seen in the goods only after signing the contract, as long as overruled payment, the appellant can be shipped immediately.
In sum, the contract deposit does not exceed 20% of the total contract amount of the part of the effective, resulting in the case is unable to perform the contract is overruled the root causes of non-payment, and do not have access conditions for goods, rather than the appellant default delivery. Overruled not fulfil contractual obligations, the right to request the return of the deposit had been delivered. In view of the appellant contract has been the subject of resale of others, overruled also sue for rescission, the two sides signed purchase and sales contracts should be lifted, has been overruled delivery of 676,000 yuan advances should be the return of the appellant, the appellant should be During the occupation of the money to pay the interest. Appellant appeals justified, hospital support. Owed when the trial verdict, and should be corrected. In accordance with the PRC Economic Contract Law Article 6, Article 7, paragraph 1, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, Article 29, paragraph 1, Article 32, the People s Republic of the law on guarantees Article 91, the provisions of Article 89, and the verdict as follows:
First, remove Qingdao City Intermediate People s Court (2000) by the beginning of the word Green No. 23 of judgements in civil proceedings.
Second, the two sides signed the lifting Penn soil domain bowling equipment sales contracts.
Third, the appellant Beijing Sports Bowling Equipment Co., Ltd. refund overruled Yizhong (Qingdao) Ltd. Yufuhuokuan development of the sports industry and to pay 676,000 yuan during the occupation of the amount of interest (interest by enterprises under the People s Bank of China over the same period liquidity loans rates since December 26, 1998 to calculate the effective date of the judgement).
The above amounts, in the judgement within 10 days after the entry into force of executing. If the overdue payment, to double during the delay payment of interest on debt.
4. Rejected overruled Yizhong (Qingdao) Ltd. double development of the sports industry claim the return of the deposit.
The first trial processing fees 23,530 yuan, 11,765 yuan by the appellant burden, the burden of 11,765 yuan overruled; second trial of cases accepted for 23,530 yuan, overruled by the burden.
The decision for the final judgement.
In-chief justice
Acting Judge Ouyang Ming Cheng
Acting Judge Sun Ying
2 OOO, August 15
Clerks (generation) Mengxianggang
Related: Case study: HM Revenue Customs Businesslink: International
Additional information:
From www.publictechnology.net:
Rating:
Not yet rated
Comments
No comments posted.
Add Comment
You do not have permission to comment. If you
log in, you may be able to comment.
