The plaintiff, an insurance company acting under an assignment of rights, claimed for damage to a cargo of electronics carried from Cristobal, Panama, to Iñique, Chile. The bill of lading provided for the Hague-Visby rules as the applicable law. At the destination 187 boxes were missing.

The defendant challenged the amount of the claim, arguing that the consignee declared a lower value of the cargo to custom authorities at destination than appeared on the relevant documentation. The value of the cargo was not inserted in the bill of lading. The plaintiff paid the insured an amount based on the market value, which reflected a higher amount than that reported in the custom declaration. The claimant submitted expert evidence of the market value of the cargo at destination. The First Maritime Court decided that the value of the cargo must be calculated according to art 4.5.b. of the Hague-Visby rules, which takes as its reference the value of the goods at the place and time the goods are discharged. The defendant appealed this decision.

Held: The Supreme Court of Justice, Civil Branch, acting as Court of Maritime Appeals, held that art 4.5.b of the Hague-Visby Rules establishes an objective regime for the assessment of the good’s value based on the market value at the place where they are discharged. Hence, the submission of expert evidence is necessary to determine such prices. The Hague-Visby rules do not leave it to the importers’ criteria to fix the prices, even if it is reported in the customs declaration, which relates to the payment of taxes and not to the obligation contracted under a bill of lading.