华泰海事关于应对装货港短量索赔的建议
来源：The Skuld P&I Club@ 2021.04.28
协会通代--华泰海事向协会报告了几起装货港散货短量索赔案例，即使散货短量不超过0.5%，收货人仍以装货港短量为由提出短量索赔。
华泰海事去年已经处理了几起类似案件，现与会员分享其处理此类事件的经验。
近日，华泰通代收到多个来自协会的咨询，卸货短量在0.5%以内，但收货人仍以装货港短量为由提出短量索赔，这种情况下应该如何处理？华泰通代去年曾处理过几起类似案件，希望与会员分享以下经验。
关于装货港散货短量的新判决
广州海事法院于2020年12月28日做出的民事判决书（2020）Y72MC第871号指出：承运人应对少于提单数量0.5%的短量承担责任。
在本案中，承运人提供了一份装货港水尺检验报告以证明承运人在明知货物短量的情况下签发清洁提单。法院认为承运人在事件中存在疏忽大意，不接受承运人提出0.5%贸易允差的辩护。本案已进入二审阶段，判决尚未做出。
判决依据：最高法院意见
最高人民法院民事审判第四庭副庭长王淑梅于2017年6月16日在全国海事审判实践座谈会上总结发言。有关承运人对散货短量的责任，其观点之一是“在承运人对管货义务不存在任何非谨慎义务过错的前提下，承运人可提出按水尺检验0.5%内贸易允差的免责辩护。
相反，如果有证据证明承运人存在过错，（例如提单是根据托运人声明和LOI在装货港短量情况下签发的），承运人0.5%贸易允差的辩护原则上则不成立，即便短量少于0.5%”。
最高法院意见所产生的影响
广东一家律师事务所在2020年代表一家玉米进口公司提出一系列索赔，试图依照最高法院的意见获得赔偿。
广州海事法院对其中一个索赔做出上述判决，这无疑鼓励其他索赔人提出索赔。华泰通代预计将来可能会有更多类似索赔。
华泰通代广东办公室处理过另一起类似案件，一家德国船东的索赔在一审中被驳回。但中国法院后来在德国送达了传票。在华泰通代广东办公室的协助下，双方就本案的赔偿内容达成一致。
建议
对于运往中国的散货货物，请确保装货港或卸货港的水尺检验报告不会向货物权益人，包括托运人、收货人和租船人等披露，尤其是承运人安排或由船员自己做的水尺检验报告。
请让船长和船员了解承运人在中国用装货港短量作为辩护理由是没有好处的。相反，这可能导致承运人承担责任。不应在装货港向任何人出示或提供水尺检验报告，包括由货物权益人委派的代表及检验人、海关、海事局、港务局、代理等。
对于运往中国的散货货物，建议将水尺检验报告命名为“初步信息”，而非“水尺检验报告”。同时建议在该文件上做如下备注：“本初步信息并非一份证书或报告，不做于谈判使用，也不具有任何商业价值。
如托运人在装货港要求短量的LOI时，承运人应谨慎，因为这可能被中国法院视为承运人在签发提单时存在疏忽的证据。
建议船东在索赔人采取任何法律行动前开始和解谈判。华泰通代强烈建议协会/会员尽早联系通代以便提供及时协助。
Our local correspondents in China, Huatai Marine, have provided the following update on cases where a claim is made for shortage on the ground of short loading at the loading port, despite the shortage of discharged quantity not exceeding 0.5%.Huatai Marine have dealt with several of these cases and want to share their experience with our Members.Recently, several queries were received from the Club seeking our experiences in handling cases when the shortage of discharged quantity did not exceed 0.5% and the consignee still claimed for shortage on the ground of short loading at the loading port. We did deal with several similar cases from last year and would like to share the experiences with the Club/Members as follows.A New Judgement Regarding Shortage at Loading PortCivil Judgment (2020) Y72MC No.871 made by Guangzhou Maritime Court on December 28, 2020 states that the Carriers shall be liable for the shortage of less than 0.5% of the B/L quantity. In this case, the Shippers provided a draft survey report at the loading port to prove that the Carriers issued a clean bill of lading under the circumstance of knowing that the cargo was short loaded. The Court considered that the Carriers were negligent and did not support the 0.5% trade allowance claimed by the carriers.The judgement has been appealed and the second trial judgement has yet to be made.Basis of the Judgement: the Supreme Court's OpinionWang Shumei, Deputy Chief Judge of the Fourth Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court, gave the summary speech at the National Maritime Trial Practice Symposium on June 16, 2017. In terms of "the Carrier's liability for shortage of bulk cargo", one of her points is "the Carriers are allowed to raise a defense of exemption of liability of trade allowance within 0.5% of the draft survey on the premises that the Carriers do not have any faults of non-prudential obligation on the care of cargo obligation. If there is evidence to the contrary that the Carriers are at fault (e.g., bill of lading is issued against the Shippers' declaration and the LOI when cargo is short loaded at the port of loading), the Carriers' defense of 0.5% trade allowance shall in principle not be sustained, even if the deficiency is less than 0.5%."Impact of the Supreme Court's OpinionA law firm in Guangdong, on behalf of a corn import company, filed a series of such claims in 2020, trying to rely on the Supreme Court's opinion to get compensation.The above judgement of the Guangzhou Maritime Court was issued for one of the claims, which undoubtedly encouraged the Receivers to pursue the other claims. We therefore anticipate that theremight be more similar types of claims in future.In a similar case handled by our Guangdong office, Owners in Germany rejected the claim in the first instance. However, a summons was later served by the Chinese Court in Germany. With the assistance of our Guangdong Office, the claim was settled at an acceptable level to both sides.· For shipment of bulk cargo destined to China, please make sure that the draft survey report of either loading port or discharging port would not be disclosed to the cargo interests including Shippers, Consignees, and Charterers, especially the draft survey report arranged by the Carriers or conducted by the crew members themselves.· Please let the Master and crew members know that there is no good for the Carriers to defend shortage claim in China by arguing short loading at the loading port. On the contrary, it may cause liability for the Carriers. Do not present/provide the draft report at the loading port to anyone including the cargo interest's representative, the cargo interest's surveyor, Customs, MSA, Port Authorities, agents, etc.· It is suggested that the draft survey be named "Preliminary Information Advice" other than "draft survey report" if the bulk cargo carried is bound for China. It is also suggested to include the following remarks on such document: "This Preliminary Information Advice is not a Certificate or Report and is not intended for negotiation nor does it have any commercial value in any respect whatsoever."· Be cautious about demanding LOI from the Shippers for shortage at the loading port since it may be considered as evidence of the Carriers' negligence in issuing B/L by the Chinese court.· It is advisable that Owners commence settlement negotiation before the claimants take any legal actions. To this end, we highly recommend Clubs/Members to contact us earliest so that timely assistance can be provided.
返回
