weight on AWB

GerhardH · Post by **GerhardH** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:00 am

Dear All,

following discrepancy was stated by confirming bank:
AWB shows 9,4 kg, other documents show 9,460 kg.

On AWB it is only possible to show the weight with one position after decimal point.
Should therefore this discrepancy be rejected?
In my opinion it is discrepant, because it is not rounded to the nearest (in german called "kaufmännisches Runden"), but truncated.
Is that really a discrepancy?

Would it be correct, if the AWB states 9,5 kg (correctly rounded)?

Thanks for your opinions.
Gerhard

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:00 am

The question of what constitutes ‘data conflict’ can be problematical. Based on the information you have provided I would be inclined to regard the AWB showing 9,4 kg as a discrepancy (however I would not be at all surprised if a court or the ‘Banking’ Commission did not) but the AWB showing 9,5 kg as definitely not being a discrepancy.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:00 am

Gerhard,

The Banking Commission seems to be indulgent about these things
(See 470/TA.754)
Daniel

GlennRansier_olsABN · Post by **GlennRansier_olsABN** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:00 am

I would find it difficult to call it a conflict in either of the results 9.4 versus 9.5 given that there is no mandate to have each and every industry/document/etc. conform to use of 1, 2 or 3 decimal places. If the airline is indicating it is their practice to use one decimal place then it should not be considered a conflict. Their are two opinions that speak of rounding TA687rev and TA754rev.

SladjanaSkakic · Post by **SladjanaSkakic** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:00 am

Before commenting this question I want to thank Daniel and Glenn for tips about these two opinions regarding rounding, but I don't think that they are directly applicable to this issue. Both opinions are about CORRECT rounding down, i.e. rounding down performed in accordance with the established counting rules. Roundings down were deemed acceptable in the described circumstances.

The question here was whether the rounding of 9.460 to 9.4 was correct and acceptable. According to the established counting rules, rounding the figure of 9.460 would lead to 9.5, not 9.4, so rounding is not correct, BUT, despite an incorrect rounding, it would be acceptable under Docdex Decision no. 241 ("The gross weight of the packing list amounted to 1627.7 kg. The airway bill indicated a weight of 1627.0 kg"), i.e. the same incorrect rounding, but still acceptable.

(I personally think that it is not a proper rounding and therefore not acceptable, but should follow Docdex's decissoin).

So, discrepancy should be rejected.

Regards,
Sladjana Skakic