Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
cargo consolidator might, as here, fail to forward the freight payment to the carrier. Under the semi-strict “assumption of risk” view — the view taken by the district court — a shipper remains liable to a carrier, regardless of the shipper’s payment to a cargo consolidator like ICTS, unless the carrier intentionally released the shipper from its duty to pay under the bill of lading. See Nat’l Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. Omni Lines, 106 F.3d 1544, 1546-47 (11th Cir.1997) (adopting rule of “semi-strict liability for shippers,” such that “unless the carrier intends to release the shipper from its duty to pay under the bill of lading, the shipper remains liable to the carrier, irrespective of the shipper’s payment to a [cargo consolidator]”); Strachan Shipping Co., 701 F.2d at 489-90 ; Sectr-Land Serv. v. Amstar Corp., 690 F.Supp.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is not
B. holding that shipper is relieved of liability only if it can demonstrate that carrier actually released it
C. holding that it may not
D. holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court
E. holding that once a mandatory choice of forum clause is deemed valid the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate exceptional facts explaining why he should be relieved from his contractual duty
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.