1. The item shows two separate shipments, which is impossible for one order.
2. The first tracking number (DHL Express #5781031874) shows “delivery” only two days after shipping from China, physically impossible.
3. The second tracking number (Jia Packet #JCEYI2200007154YQ) is from a non-standard courier, shows no name, no unit number, no delivery photo, and does not confirm delivery to my address.
4. Neither tracking number corresponds to a parcel addressed to me, and I did not receive ANY package.
5. This pattern matches known “delivered-to-ZIP code” fraud where sellers use unrelated tracking numbers to trick automated systems.
These screenshots clearly prove the merchant provided invalid and inconsistent proof of delivery.
Additional Legal & Evidentiary Clarifications:
1. There is no chain of custody connecting either tracking number to me.
A valid proof of delivery requires a documented chain connecting:
● the seller →
● the carrier →
● the parcel →
● the recipient’s full address
● and ideally, a signature, name match, or photo.
Neither DHL nor Jia Packet tracking numbers show:
● my name
● my unit number
● my building
● my signature
● a delivery photo
● package dimensions
● package weight
● acceptance scan with my identity
Without these elements, the merchant cannot claim the item was delivered to me.
________________________________________
2. Two conflicting tracking numbers constitute prima facie evidence of seller fraud.
It is not possible for one order, paid in a single transaction, to generate two separate shipments:
● DHL Express #5781031874
● Jia Packet #JCEYI2200007154YQ
This is a documented pattern of “item not received fraud”, where sellers attach unrelated tracking numbers to pass automated platform checks.
Banks are legally required to evaluate inconsistencies.
This inconsistency is material and invalidates the merchant’s claim entirely.
________________________________________
3. The DHL delivery timing is physically impossible and therefore invalid.
The merchant claims a package:
● Originating from Zhejiang Province, China
● Using DHL Express International
● Was delivered to Lethbridge, Canada
● Within 48 hours
This contradicts DHL’s own published transit times.
Such timing is impossible for customs-cleared international parcels.
This strongly suggests the tracking number was not associated with my item.
________________________________________
4. The Jia Packet tracking is non-verifiable and lacks forensic delivery identifiers.
The alternate tracking number does not include:
● recipient name
● recipient address
● unit/apartment number
● signature
● photo evidence
● weight consistent with a Canon G7X camera (approx. 500–800g boxed)
Because this courier does not provide verifiable delivery audits, this cannot constitute proof of delivery.
________________________________________
5. The timing of “delivery” aligns exactly with post-protection-window fraud.
The second tracking number shows “Delivered” on October 26, which is:
● 31 days after purchase,
● the exact date when eBay’s buyer protection expires,
● a known tactic used by fraudulent sellers to avoid platform liability.
This indicates intentional manipulation by the seller.
________________________________________
6. I attest that NO package was received by me at any time.
I did not receive:
● a camera
● an empty package
● a notice
● a missed delivery card
● any parcel addressed to me
My sworn statement supersedes ambiguous or unverifiable tracking data lacking recipient identity.
________________________________________
7. The merchant has failed to provide legally standard proof of delivery.
A merchant asserting “item delivered” must provide recipient-linked evidence.
The burden of proof rests with the merchant.
They have not met this burden.
Therefore, the dispute decision should legally default in favor of the cardholder.
Given the inconsistencies, lack of recipient-specific delivery evidence, use of conflicting tracking numbers, and the impossibility of the merchant’s delivery claims, I respectfully request that the chargeback be reinstated in my favor under merchant misrepresentation and failure to deliver goods
Thank you,
Best,
Anushka Ranaut
Claimed loss: USD $331.89
Desired outcome: Refund of USD $331.89
Confidential Information Hidden: This section contains confidential information visible to verified DHL Express representatives only. If you are affiliated with DHL Express, please claim your business to access these details.