1 Our findings in the documents provided by memberFrom the damaged list for containers issued by COSTAO for vessel DAPHNE VOY No 2085W we noticed that the 8 containers used to transport the menti

Our findings from the documents provided by the member indicate that the damaged list for containers issued by COSTAO for vessel DAPHNE (VOY No. 2085W) did not include the 8 containers used to transport the mentioned cargo. This suggests that these 8 containers did not sustain significant damage during unloading at Tianjin Port. Upon reviewing the container photos and repair estimate, we have determined that, except for container TCNU3089173, the other containers only require routine washing after being returned empty (container TEMU7474630 requires chemical cleaning), and no defects were found in the photos. However, container TCNU3089173 has a significant dent/scratches near the front left corner, and a suspected liquid trace in black color was found in the upper right corner of the rear door (it is unknown whether there was a leak). Please refer to the following photos for details. In summary, except for container TCNU3089173, the other containers are intact. Container TCNU3089173 may have suffered slight scratches or collisions during transfer at the port or after being picked up by the consignee. Of course, it is also possible that it was not recorded in the damaged list due to slight damage.

Regarding the moisture in the cargo packaging, based on the information we have, besides the warehouse keeper claiming that the cargo was wet in the container, there is no substantive evidence, such as photos, to prove that the wet is related to transportation. The warehouse keeper claimed that the wet packages were discovered when opening the 8 containers, and no damage to the container was found during transport. Based on the condition of the cargo we have observed on site, we do not rule out the possibility that the cargo was already wet before being loaded into the container, or that water entered from the bottom during transportation and storage at the terminal.

The opposite party has not provided any evidence to support their claim. Based on our on-site inspection, we only found packaging deformation and rust on some stainless steel tubings of the bed's backrest. We believe the actual loss should be around USD 4,000. If the opposite party insists on claiming USD 253,664.49 from us, they should provide relevant evidence to prove that they suffered such a loss, and that the loss was caused by our responsibility. We will further evaluate based on their evidence once received