The shipowners demanded that the charterers pay the hire and the fuel cost during the period from the time of delivery of the vessel at Qingdao to the time of her delivery to the new charterer at Nampo. The charterers took no exception against their payment to the shipowners of the full hire and fuel cost as was provided in the charterparty. They, however, argued that: (1) as the vessel started to perform a new charterparty when the charterparty was discharged at Hai-Phong, they should not bear the hire and fuel cost during the period from Hai-Phong to Nampo after discharge of the charterparty; and (2) although withdrawal of the vessel was declared by the shipowners at 10 00 hours on 26 March, the vessel had already sailed from Hai-Phong at 17 30 hours on 25 March, which should thus be deemed as the time of discharge of the charterparty.

The Tribunal held as follows: (1) The documents produced by the shipowners demonstrated that they had already concluded a new charterparty with a Singapore charterer on 18 March 1994 before declaring withdrawal of the vessel at 10 00 hours on 26 March. The voyage taken by the vessel in ballast from Hai-Phong to Nampo from 17 30 hours on 25 March should be deemed as a preliminary voyage to perform the new charterparty. Hence the hire and fuel cost should be paid until the time of her withdrawal at Hai-Phong, instead of the time of her delivery to the Singapore charterer at Nampo. (2) Though the shipowners had declared withdrawal of the vessel at 10 00 hours on 26 March, the vessel actually proceeded from Hai-Phong at 17 30 hours on 25 March for performance of the new charterparty. The charterparty should therefore be deemed as discharged in effect at 17 30 hours on 25 March, until which, hire and fuel cost should be paid.