Shippers' Declaration for Dangerous Goods

stipulating that at least one of the three data elements should be completed,which the group accepted.- A member informed that the “Customs Origin Code” data element should notbe included into the OCI Grouping Element and proposed to consider it as anindependent element within the “Transport and Booking Details” GroupingElement, to which the group agreed.- IATA will update the Waybill specification and the related schema accordingly.- Members stressed the need to separate the Customs aspects from theSecurity aspects in the light of new requirements, which raised somediscussion amongst the group.- IATA mentioned that currently the Cargo Security Declaration information wasencapsulated in the OCI line and was defined by consignment and not bypiece otherwise the piece would need to be identified at piece level.- Members asked IATA to review the definitions in the OCI Grouping element toreflect the current situation.- The group agreed at this point to leave the discussion on the separation ofCustoms from Security aspects for further considerations.Waybill discrepancy in the schema- Airlines outside of the Task Force implementing the IATA XML Messagesasked some clarification on the Waybill specification and schema:‣ ‘Means of Transport ID’ within the Waybill-XML is as optional but does notmatch data element 4.2.3 = Routing Carrier Code in the FWB/16 which is amandatory data element.‣ “We need to consider that in the future we receive Waybill-XML into oursystem and have to transmit FWBs to e.g. handling agents or Customsinterface systems and ensure that all data elements mandatory in CIMPare mandatory in XML and all data elements optional in CIMP are optionalin XML as well.”- The group reviewed the query and mentioned that the flight rooting should notbe mixed with the FWB rooting and that this should be conveyed back to theairline that raised that point.- The member discussed the conversion of the XML to Cargo-IMP and agreedthat the future should allow the Cargo-IMP to be translated into the XMLmessage and not to ensure the functionality for an XML to be converted backinto a Cargo-IMP message as the way forward was the exchange of XMLmessages.- The members recognize that implementation constraints would take placeespecially with regards to limitations from the core systems but that atransitional period should allow moving forward to XML.Page 7 of 16