Banco de Seguros del Estado claimed against Cargil International SA and others for missing cargo carried to Uruguay. The first instance Court dismissed the claim, stating that according to the bill of lading, the cargo's destination was Montevideo and not Nueva Palmira, so the contract of carriage terminated at Montevideo. The plaintiff appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging error in assessing the clean bill of lading, the role of the parties involved in the carriage of goods by sea, and the related documents.

Held: The CA reversed the decision. The CA declared that it was proven that the cargo detailed in the bill of lading was received on board the ship at the port of origin. The fact that the cargo was missing at destination was not controverted. The CA held that the function of the bill of lading is to connect the sale of goods contract with the carriage of goods by sea. It cannot be ignored that according to art 1210 of the Code of Commerce and the Hague Rules of 1924, as modified by the 1968 Protocol (the Hague-Visby Rules), the sea carrier's liability is determined by the statements that appear on the bill of lading as a representative title of the cargo. The possiblity of evidence of the contrary is always the responsibility of the carrier, it is severely limited and cannot be imposed onto the third party consignee. It is correct that the bill of lading stated that the port of destination was 'Montevideo and/or Nueva Palmira, Uruguay', and the policy document stated 'Nueva Palmira' as the city of destination. For logical reasons, as there was a pending delivery at Nueva Palmira, the discharge at Montevideo cannot be considered as the final place of destination, as the lower Court concluded. The CA agreed that the shipowners and charterers, ie the operators that were parties of the same contract of carriage, were jointly and severally liable, and ordered them to pay compensation.