九色蝌蚪自拍_相泽南av日韩在线_亚洲欧美视频在线观看_蜜臀88av_国产性一乱一性一伧一色_久热精品视频在线

中國船東互保協會資訊平臺

紅土鎳礦的安全運輸問題近年來引起國際關注。中國法院的最新判例表明，《國際海運固體散貨規則》（IMSBC）應當適用于紅土鎳礦的安全運輸。船長對于紅土鎳礦是否適運應持謹慎的判斷標準，在肉眼可見貨物潮濕情況嚴重，規格小于7毫米的小顆粒貨物占比較高且含水量超過適運水分極限的情況下，即使大顆粒貨物的含水量較低，船長亦可基于其專業判斷，為確保船、貨和人員的共同安全，有權作出停航、曬貨、檢驗等決定，承運人無需為此承但運輸合同項下的違約責任。

中國船東互保協會關于易流態化貨物的相關通函

紅土鎳礦的安全運輸問題是近年來國際航運界所共同關心的熱點話題。尤其是2010 年10 月底至12 月初，巴士海峽附近及以北水域連續發生5起船舶沉沒惡性事故。本案糾紛發生于2011年初，涉案船舶的船長為確保運輸安全而選擇停航曬貨。該行為是否構成違約，承運人是否應承擔違約責任？

案情

2011年1月28日，A輪駛抵印度尼西亞開始受載貨物直至2月11日結束。2月12日，船長簽發全套正本清潔提單。此后，船長認為貨物含水較多可能影響航行安全，故A輪停靠裝貨港錨地，進行曬貨、檢驗等操作。3月27日，A輪駛往菲律賓并于3月29日抵達，繼續進行曬貨、檢驗等操作。5月16日，A輪駛往目的港連云港并最終于5月23日抵達。

裝貨前，托運人曾出具兩份貨物申報單表明貨物適運。裝貨期間雨水較多，在裝貨過程中委托檢驗，結果表明貨物含水量超標。裝貨結束后又委托多家機構進行貨物水分檢驗，檢驗報告將貨物分為大小兩種顆粒分別給出結論，但未對貨物整體含水量是否超標作出明確判斷。

原告（收貨人）訴稱，被告進行不合理繞航，應賠償原告貨物市場價格下跌的價差損失。被告（船東）辯稱，被告系為確保船、貨安全采取合里措施，原告無權要求賠償。

判決

該案審判過程歷時3年零6個月，經歷了一審判決、二審判決，以及最高院關于是否受理再審的審查程序。

最高人民法院在其終審裁定中認為：

（一）《散貨規則》適用于涉案紅土鎳礦運輸。托運人出具的貨物申報單系單方聲明，不能作為判斷貨物是否適運的證據。承運人簽發清潔提單表明貨物外表狀況良好，僅涉及貨物品質問題，不能以承運人簽發清潔提單認定其初步認可貨物適運。貨物裝運后形成的各份檢驗報告均沒有載明大顆粒貨物的適運水分極限和整批貨物的適運水分極限，故依據《散貨規則》的規定，在承運人已有初步合理理由懷疑貨物不適運的基礎上，根據后續檢驗報告中指出的占比較高的小顆粒貨物水分超標的結論，應認定承運人在裝貨港判斷貨物不適合安全運輸的理據相對充分。

（二）收貨人既未能證明其已將貨物轉賣的真實性，亦未能證明其轉賣價格的合理性，故其主張存在損失沒有事實基礎。

評析

一、IMSBC適用于紅土鎳礦運輸

我國作為《經修正的1974年國際海上人命安全公約》的締約國，IMSBC依據該公約成為強制性規則，并于2011年1月1日對我國生效。該規則第1.7.5條款規定：“易流態化貨物系指至少含有部分細顆粒和一定量水分的貨物。在運輸中，如果這些貨物的水分含量超過其適運水分極限，會流態化。”紅土鎳礦的特性符合這一定義。中國交通運輸部于2011年11月9日頒布《水路運輸易流態化固體散裝貨物安全管理規定》，其中第四條明確指出紅土鎳礦屬于易流態化固體散裝貨物。三級法院均認定IMSBC應當適用于紅土鎳礦的安全運輸。

二、船長有權對于貨物是否適運進行判斷

IMSBC中所列明的測試適運水分極限的實驗方法只適用于最大粒度為7毫米的物質，因此本案中多個檢驗機構在檢驗時均將貨物篩分為大小兩種顆粒，對于小顆粒能夠對比其水分含量與適運水分極限，而對于大顆粒則只能測量其水分含量。一審法院認為，IMSBC對于“危險性條件”的規定，是貨物含有一定比例的小顆粒和一定水分，在航行中易流態化，進而導致貨物移動，故引發危險的決定性因素是小顆粒貨物。因此，在小顆粒貨物占較大比例的情況下，船長根據檢驗中小顆粒貨物的含水量超過適運水分極限的結果判斷貨物不適運具有合理性。而二審法院則認為，大顆粒的水分含量明顯低于小顆粒的水分含量，船方僅選取小顆粒貨物進行數據對比，從而認定貨物整體上不適運，依據尚不充分。最高法院的態度同一審較為接近，綜合考慮了裝貨時的天氣情況、小顆粒物質所占比例以及對比雙方相關證據與理由，最終認定承運人判斷貨物不適運的理據相對充分。從最終裁判結果上看，最高法院的立場無疑具有指導意義，即在無法通過檢測得到明確結論時，船長對于貨物是否適運應綜合考慮多方因素，并采取謹慎的標準進行判斷。

三、船長在可能危及海上人命安全時的決定權

《經修正的1974年國際海上人命安全公約》在其34-1條中對“船長的決定權”有明確規定，即船舶所有人、承租人以及經營該船舶的公司或任何其他人員，均不得阻止或限制船舶的船長做出或執行根據船長的專業判斷認為對于海上人命安全來說所必要的任何決定。中國是該公約的締約國，公約條款在中國具有法律效力。船長只要基于其專業判斷，認為有可能危及海上人命安全的，就有權在必要的限度內行使其決定權，而不受任何其他人員的干擾。當然，還需注意的是，船長決定權的行使并非沒有限度，而是應當在必要合理的范圍內。本案中，船舶后續開往菲律賓繼續曬貨、檢驗，其合理性與必要性容易遭到懷疑。最高法院最終認定，該菲律賓港口離原本的習慣航線距離較近，船舶航行至此系為了船舶、船員和貨物的共同安全考慮，故屬于《海商法》下規定的“其他合理繞航”。關于船長決定權的規定，其實質是人命安全至上的人道主義價值取向，一審判決明確引用公約規定，終審裁定雖未適用，但其精神貫穿始終，應當說是充分尊重了船長在可能危及人命安全時的決定權。

本案例由瀛泰律師事務所提供

Facts

On 28 January 2011, vessel Aarrivedat Indonesia for cargo loading, and the loading continued until 11 February. On12 February 2011, the master issued a full set of original clean bill oflading. After that, the master suspected that the laterite nickel ore was notsuitable for safe carriage because of the high moisture content, so vessel Astayed at the anchorage of loading port for sun-drying and testing. On 27March, vessel A proceeded to Philippines, and arrived and stayed there since 29March, still for sun-drying and testing. On 16 May, vessel A departed fromPhilippines and proceeded to Lianyungang Port, and arrived on 23 Mayeventually.

Before loading, theshipper issued two Cargo Declarations indicating that the cargo was suitablefor safe carriage. The weather was very rainy during the loading operation, andeven free water was found in two holds. Two reports indicated that the moisturecontent of the cargo in above-mentioned two holds was in excess of its TMLduring loading period. After loading, a series of testing were carried out bydifferent inspection organizations. The relevant reportsdivided the cargo into small particles (<7mm) and large particles (>7mm).The small particles, the proportion of which islarger, had the moisture contentexceeding its TML, while the large particles, taking a smaller proportion, hadlower moisture content. However, no reports indicated explicitly whether themoisture content of whole cargo was beyond the limitation.

The Plaintiff (the consignee) claimsthat, the Defendant made an unjustifiable deviation, and shall thus be liablefor compensation for its significant losses in cargo’s market price. TheDefendant (the ship owner) defends that, it made correct decisions andtookreasonable measures for the common safety of the hull, cargo and crew, sothe Plaintiff has no right to claim for compensation.

Court’s Decision

The whole court process of this caselasted for 3 years and 6 months, going through the judgments by the 1st and the2nd instances, as well as the Court Decision by the Supreme People’s Court.

The Supreme People’s Court holdsthat: 1) The IMSBC Code was applicable to the carriage of the lateritenickel ore. The two sets of Cargo Declarations issued by the shipper, statingthat the moisture content of the cargo was below its TML, were only unilateralstatements, which alone could not prove that the cargo was suitable for safecarriage. That the carrier issued a set of original clean bill of lading onlyreflected that the cargo was in apparent good order. The carrier shall not bedeemed to have accepted the cargo as being suitable for safe carriage onlybecause of the issuance of clean bill of lading by the carrier. All the surveyreports after cargo loading never state about the TML for particles with a size>7mm, nor about the TML for the whole cargo. In accordance with the IMSBCCode and based on the evidence respectively presented by the shipper andthe carrier, the Court should determine that it is justifiable for the carrierto judge that the cargo was not suitable for safe carriage at the port ofloading. 2) The shipper failed to prove the actual resale of the cargo and thereasonableness of the resale price. Therefore, there was no basis for thealleged economic loss.

Comment

The issue of safe carriage oflaterite nickel ore has attracted heavy attention of international shippingsociety in recent years. Especially, from October to December 2010, 5 vesselssunk near Bass Strait and its northern water area, because of accidents causedby the carriage of laterite nickel ore. This action arose at the beginning of2011. The master chose to stop the voyage and take certain measures to ensurethe safety, while this act also caused a breach of contract under B/Lrelationship. The court’s attitude towards the master’s choice would have majorinfluence on similar cases in the future. We Wintell& Co., acting for theship owner to defend in the 1st, the 2nd and the last instance trial, found the following 3 keypoints merit our attention:-

1. Whether the IMSBC Code wasapplicable to the carriage of the laterite nickel ore

China is a contracting party to SOLASConvention 1974as amended. As per the Convention, the IMSBC Codeismandatory and it has come into effect in China as of 1 January 2011. Thecargoes in this case, i.e. the laterite nickel ore in bulk, are crude ore withdifferent sizes. This cargo is not listed as solid bulk cargo in Appendix 1 tothe IMSBC Code, whilethe IMSBC Codehowever provides that thecurrent list of typical solid bulk cargo carried by sea is “not exhaustive” andSection 1.7.5 of the IMSBC Codealso states that “cargoes which mayliquefy mean cargoes which contain a certain proportion of fine particles and acertain amount of moisture. They may liquefy if shipped with moisture contentin excess of their transportable moisture limit”. The nature of laterite nickelore is of course in accordance with this definition. In addition, Article 4 ofSafetyManagement Rules for Waterway Transport of Solid Bulk Cargoes that are LiabletoLiquefypromulgated by Chinese Ministry of Transport on 9 November 2011explicitly indicates that laterite nickel ore is one kind of solid bulk cargoesthat are liable to liquefy. All the three courts of different instances heldthe same view towards this issue, i.e. the IMSBC Code shall beapplicable to the carriage of the laterite nickel ore.

2. The criteria for masters to judgewhether solid bulk cargoes that are liable toliquefyis suitable for safecarriage or not

The firstgenerally accepted method for testing the TML, flow table test, stipulated inAppendix 2 of the IMSBC Code, was designed for mineral concentrates andother fine materials with a maximum grain size of 7mm. Therefore, most of theinspection organizations in this case divided the cargo into small particlesand large particles accordingly. For small particles, the moisture content andTML could be tested and then be compared; while for large particles, only themoisture content could be tested but notthe TML.

The 1st instance court held that,Article 7.2.1 under Article 7.2 “Conditions for hazards” of the provisions ofSection 7 “Cargo that may liquefy” under the IMSBC Codeprovides that: “GroupA cargoes contain a certain proportion of small particles and a certain amountof moisture. Group A cargoes may liquefy during a voyage even when they arecohesive and trimmed level.”Therefore, it could be seen that, the finegrainsare crucial elements that may easily cause liquefy. Under thecircumstances where the proportion of the small particles was larger, it isreasonable for the Defendant to apply the IMSBC Codein this case and tocompare the moisture content of the small particles with its TML, andeventually to judge that the cargo was not suitable for safe carriage.

The 2nd instance court held that, themoisture content of large particles is obviously lower than that of smallparticles.There was no sufficient evidence forthe master to make thejudgmentthat the whole cargo was not suitable for safe carriage, only by comparing thedata of small particles.

The Supreme Court held that, inconsideration of the whole situation during loading period, it is notinappropriateforthe carrier to reasonably initially suspect that the cargo wasnot suitable for safe carriage. On the basis that the proportion of smallparticles was larger and the moisture content of small particles was above theTML, it is reasonable for the carrier to conclude that the cargo was notsuitable for safe carriage.

3. Master’s discretion when safety oflife at sea is threatened

Article 34-1 “Master’s discretion” ofthe SOLAS Convention 1974as amended provides that: “The owner, thecharterer, the company operating the ship as defined in regulation IX/1, or anyother person shall not prevent or restrict the master of the ship fromtakingorexecuting any decision which, in the master’s professional judgment, isnecessary for safety of life at sea and protection of the marine environment.”As China is a contracting party to the Convention, this article also haslegal binding force within mainland China. Another thingto note is that, thediscretion of a master should also be exercised within a reasonable andnecessary scope. As in this case, the master decided to stop at Philippines,which was not in the normal route from Indonesia to Lianyungang, so the carrierhas the burden of proving the reasonableness and necessity of this act.Finally, the Supreme Court held that, Philippines is very close to the normalroute from the loading port to the destination port, thus it could be concludedthat, it was for common safety of the ship, the crew and the cargo on boardwhen the vessel sailed to Philippines, which shall be deemed as “or any justifiabledeviation” as provided for in the Maritime Code of China. The essence ofmaster’sdiscretionis the respect for life. The judgment of 1st instance citedthe Convention directly, while the Supreme Court’s decision did not apply thisarticle directly but followed its spirit thoroughly.