A.
Valuation Charge is to be calculated using the precise local currency equivalent of the SDR value on the day the AWB is issued. I think airlines must have intentionally avoided to define the conversion procedure in details on the AWB Condition of Contract nor in the General Condition of Carriage. Since it will be impossible to apply the daily conversion rate of SDR, IATA has elected to use “for convenience” the IATA Clearing House Monthly 5 Day Rate which is set for each 4-month period of the year. Since this was based on convenience, therefore the footnote: ”For information purpose only”. Before 19 SDR came into being, I am assuming that there was an asterisk in the 17SDR column. I fail to understand why the asterisk now only appears with the 19SDR column and does not show for the 17SDR column. Considering from the original intent of the asterisk, I feel it is a simple omission from oversight. What is crystal clear is that as written in the preamble of the AWB Condition of Contract as well as in Article 4, regardless of which convention or protocol, carrier’s liability is set at 19SDR per IATA Resolution. Therefore, there is no need to continuously carry the local currency equivalents of 17SDR. TACT should only show the local currency equivalent of 19SDR.

Since carrier’s liability is declared at 19SDR on the AWB Condition of Contract, it will be a case of fraud if Valuation Charge of 0.75% is charged to merchandise value above a lower benchmark of 17SDR. Carriers can only charge a Valuation Charge when and if the declared value exceeds 19SDR per kilogram. If the carrier would charge valuation charge for merchandise exceeding USD20.00 under Warsaw/Hague, or 17SDR under MP-4, carriers will be sued for fraud.

TACT rules are often not up to date. There is a problem with 3.2 Valuation Charge in particular.

When handling a claim case, the purpose why the carrier must check which convention or protocol would apply to the carriage is not for the liability limits. It is to check whether the carriage is under “assumed liability” concept or under “absolute liability”. With the former, carriers are able to refute, and with the latter, carriers are penalized under absolute liability. The negotiation process will be different.