Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
RECENT BEIJING MARITIME ARBITRATION AWARDS
Liu Shujian*
1. Cargo shortage—unknown clause—clean bill of lading
A vessel carried bagged urea from a Romanian port to Qinhuangdao, China. When discharged, the cargo was found short. The consignees claimed for cargo shortage against the shipowners in accordance with cl. 19 of the charterparty incorporated into the bills of lading. The charterparty provided:
2. Owners are to be responsible for loss of or damage to the goods or for delay in delivery of the goods only in case the loss, damage or delay has been caused by the improper or negligent stowage of the goods or by personal want of due diligence on the part of the Owners or their Manager to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy … or by the personal act of default of the Owners or their Manager.
19. Not withstanding Clause 2, Owners shall not be relieved of their obligation to deliver to the Charterers or Consignees the same quantity of the cargo as conclusively evidenced in the Bills of Lading.
The Tribunal held that, notwithstanding the existence of the “weight … quantity … unknown” clause in the bills of lading, the shipowners could not be relieved from their responsibility to deliver the cargo to the holders of the bills of lading as per the pieces of the cargo indicated in the clean bills of lading once the pieces of the cargo on board the vessel were indicated in the bills of lading and where no remark as to the particulars of the pieces of cargo furnished by the shipper was made on the bills of lading when the master signed the bills of lading, unless the shipowners could give sufficient reasons and evidence to show that they should not be responsible for the cargo shortage. The shipowners’ contention that the vessel did not call at any other port and the cargo was neither lost nor abandoned during the voyage could not serve as grounds for arguing that the shipowners should not be bound by the cargo pieces indicated in the bills of lading. The draft survey reports at the loading port and at the discharging port on which the shipowners relied to prove the cargo shortlanded was in fact not shipped onto the vessel could not constitute the basis for the shipowners to topple the pieces of cargo indicated in the clean bills of lading.
2. Cargo water damage—clean bill of lading
A cargo of urea laden at a Romanian port destined for a Chinese port was found damaged by water when discharged. The consignees claimed for cargo damage against the shipowners in accordance with cl. 19 of the charterparty incorporated
263
263