Agrimares SL claimed for non-delivery of two containers carried from Chile to Barcelona, Spain by DSV Air & Sea SAU (DSV). The health/sanitary certificates relating to the cargo were lost when the cargo was inspected by the Peruvian authorities, impeding its delivery at the destination.

The first instance Court dismissed the claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, stating that DSV, as the carrier, did not diligently comply with the obligation to take care of the containers' documentation. DSV recurred the decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC), alleging an infraction of arts 4.2.a, 4.2.d, and 4.2.g of the Hague-Visby Rules. DSV invoked an exoneration from liability because it was not its responsibility to review the documents' content, and it was impossible to recover them. DSV argued that it complied with its obligation to transport the two containers. Its obligation was limited to collect, transport and deliver the cargo and its documents, but not to review and confirm its contents. The inspection of the container by the Peruvian authorities was an extraordinary event where the carrier had no ability to intervene. The problem of the missing documents appeared once the carriage was concluded.

Held: The SC did not admit the recourse. The SC agreed that it is the carrier's obligation to take care of and safeguard the cargo, which also implies safeguarding the related documents that certify that the cargo was received in good condition to be delivered. The obligation of custody, care and safeguard remains during the whole period of the carriage. The loss of the documents during the inspection carried out by the authorities of Peru was an event that cannot be attributed to the carrier's fault. However, the carrier should have acted diligently to detect the loss and try to recover them. The carrier was responsible for the custody of the documents when they were lost, and, therefore, it was the only party that had knowledge of this and could solve, or try to solve, this problem. DSV's argument is premised on a declaration of the concurrence of one exoneration cause without providing evidence of that. Article 4.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules establishes the exoneration causes that strike down the presumption of the carrier's liability. Still, nothing has been proven in this regard, making it impossible to exonerate DSV under a generic principle.