申國(guó)國(guó)際貿(mào)易促進(jìn)委員會(huì)海事仲裁委員會(huì)
裁決書
(1983)外仲字第××號(hào)
申訴人：保險(xiǎn)人×××
委托代理人：英國(guó)×××律師事務(wù)所律師×××被訴人:“陽(yáng)春”號(hào)輪船舶所有人×××
英國(guó)×××律師事務(wù)所代表申訴人保險(xiǎn)人×××，就被訴人船舶所有人×××所屬“陽(yáng)春”輪運(yùn)載的木薯粉發(fā)生短少和蟲害的爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題，向海事仲裁委員會(huì)提出了仲裁申請(qǐng)。
按照海事仲裁委員會(huì)仲裁擇序規(guī)則的規(guī)定，本會(huì)主席根據(jù)雙 方當(dāng)事人的委托，分別指定張×臣和髙×來(lái)為仲裁員。兩位仲裁員 共同推選邵×怡為首席仲裁員組成仲裁庭審理本案。
一、案情和雙方的主張
“陽(yáng)春”輪一九七九年五月三十一日從廣州黃埔裝運(yùn)木薯粉兩 萬(wàn)袋計(jì)500公噸，運(yùn)往法國(guó)勒阿弗爾。七月二十日抵勒阿弗爾后， 即日開(kāi)始將貨物直接卸入十二節(jié)車皮，七月二十一日卸完。卸貨 時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)一百三十一袋木薯粉破漏。七月二十三日貨物由火車運(yùn)抵 收貨人所在的南特時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)木薯粉袋沾染米象生長(zhǎng)。申訴人要求被 訴人賠償破包短少的九百七十五公斤計(jì)1 287法國(guó)法郎以及與木 薯粉袋沾染米象熏蒸有關(guān)的費(fèi)用72 394.19法國(guó)法郎和檢驗(yàn)費(fèi) 3 972. 85法郎，外加利息和仲裁費(fèi)用。
關(guān)于九百七十五公斤木薯粉的短少何題，申訴人提出貨物在 勒阿弗爾卸船時(shí)由收貨人代理和船代理簽署的卸貨記錄已有記載。被訴人對(duì)此未提出異議。
關(guān)于木薯粉袋沾染米象問(wèn)題，申訴人提出，根據(jù)貨物檢驗(yàn)人的報(bào)告，米象全在木薯粉袋的外表，袋里并無(wú)蟲子，因此損害系由沾染造成，不是貨物的內(nèi)在缺陷，而且貨物在裝船前經(jīng)過(guò)廣州商品檢驗(yàn)局的檢驗(yàn)，船長(zhǎng)又簽發(fā)了清潔提單，因此蟲害是在裝船以后發(fā)生的；在勒哈弗爾卸船以后，貨物即被運(yùn)往南特，卸貨時(shí)間和鐵路運(yùn)輸時(shí)間很短，運(yùn)貨的車皮調(diào)自不同的地方，以前僅裝運(yùn)過(guò)鋼鐵，因 此蟲害不可能發(fā)生在卸船以后鐵路運(yùn)輸?shù)倪^(guò)程中；黃埔至勒哈弗爾的航程共五十天，艙內(nèi)溫度文逢宜米象，如果船舶以前的航次裝 運(yùn)過(guò)有蟲害的大米，或本航次在裝運(yùn)木寒粉的第二艙內(nèi)裝有這種 貨物，就會(huì)發(fā)生蟲害。而且，在勒阿弗爾卸貨時(shí)，收貨人代理和船代 理共同簽署的“卸貨記錄”中記載有活的米象，因此蟲害發(fā)生在海 運(yùn)階段，根據(jù)提單規(guī)定，被訴人應(yīng)對(duì)貨物沾染米象負(fù)責(zé)。
被訴人提出，船舶在本航次第二艙內(nèi)裝運(yùn)的貨物為雜貨、罐頭之類，未裝運(yùn)任何糧食類貨物；前兩個(gè)航次自黃浦至日本各港裝運(yùn) 的是雜貨、鋼材、卡車等，也不曾裝運(yùn)球糧食，因此木薯粉不可能在 船上沾染米象。被訴人還提出，在勒阿弗爾卸貨時(shí)并未發(fā)現(xiàn)米象， 因而被訴人已履行承運(yùn)人根據(jù)提單應(yīng)盡的義務(wù)，從而對(duì)在南特發(fā)現(xiàn)的蟲害不負(fù)責(zé)任。
ニ、仲裁庭意見(jiàn)
仲裁庭審閱了雙方提供的證據(jù)和申述的理由，對(duì)蟲害是否發(fā) 生在海運(yùn)階段進(jìn)行了認(rèn)真的研究和分析。
×××先生在南特簽發(fā)的貨物檢驗(yàn)報(bào)告中稱，“米象的生命周 期不可能發(fā)生在面粉中，ロ袋內(nèi)部沒(méi)有蟲子，而僅在ロ袋的外表有 蟲子。因此蟲子是來(lái)自包裝以外，而不是由于木薯粉有什么缺陷”。 對(duì)此，雙方?jīng)]有不同意見(jiàn)。
問(wèn)題的焦點(diǎn)在于沾染米象是否發(fā)生在海運(yùn)階段，即在勒阿弗 爾卸貨時(shí)貨物的袋子上是否有蟲子。申訴人首先有責(zé)任證明貨物 是在海運(yùn)過(guò)程中沾染蟲子的。申訴人主張沾染發(fā)生在船上的依據(jù) 是收貨人代理和船代理共同簽署的5559號(hào)“卸貨記錄”，該記錄在 括號(hào)內(nèi)標(biāo)有“有活的米象”。
仲裁庭審閱了申訴人所提供的文件。收貨人代理在1979年7 月24日給收貨人的2946號(hào)電傳中稱：“繼報(bào)告在貨物里發(fā)現(xiàn)米象 的電話，現(xiàn)確認(rèn)本月20日和21日從車廂里直接接受貨物時(shí)，我們 沒(méi)有發(fā)現(xiàn)有蟲。”收貨人代理1979年7月26日致收貨人的函稱：“如同我們?cè)诒驹?4日2946號(hào)電傳中所確認(rèn)的那樣，我們?cè)诮邮?這批貨時(shí)，未發(fā)現(xiàn)任何蟲子的蹤跡”，“我們讓在(第5559號(hào)）記 錄上寫上‘在貨物里有活的米象’。”仲裁庭認(rèn)為，首先和直接見(jiàn)到 卸貨時(shí)貨物狀況的收貨人代理的上述電傳和信件，比四天以后簽 署的“驗(yàn)貨記錄”具有更強(qiáng)的證明力。因此，申訴人未能完成其舉證 責(zé)任。在此情況下，鐵路車皮是否有可能是米象來(lái)源的問(wèn)題已不具 有決定性的意義。但仲裁庭愿意順便提出，根據(jù)申訴人的檢驗(yàn)人所 敘述的米象的生命周期，只有證明每節(jié)車皮接受貨物前沒(méi)有蟲的 檢驗(yàn)報(bào)告，或者證明這些車皮在裝運(yùn)本案貨物以前足夠長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間 內(nèi)均未裝運(yùn)可能沾染米象的貨物，才能排除在車皮上沾染米象的 可能性，而申訴人并未提供這方面的證據(jù)。
三、裁決
1.被訴人應(yīng)對(duì)9ァ5公斤木薯粉的短少負(fù)責(zé)，賠償申訴人1 287法國(guó)法郎，并自1979年7月21日起加計(jì)年率百分之七的利息。
2.被訴人對(duì)木薯粉袋沾染蟲子不負(fù)責(zé)任，申訴人關(guān)于熏蒸費(fèi) 和檢驗(yàn)費(fèi)的索賠不能成立。
3.本案仲裁手續(xù)費(fèi)為×××英鎊，實(shí)際開(kāi)支為×××英鎊， 合計(jì)×××英鎊，由申訴人負(fù)擔(dān)×××英鎊，被訴人負(fù)擔(dān)×××英鎊。申訴人已預(yù)付仲裁手續(xù)費(fèi)×××英鎊，尚應(yīng)向海事仲裁委員會(huì) 補(bǔ)付×××英鎊。
本裁決為終局裁決。
首席仲裁員邵××
仲裁員張××
仲裁員高××
-九八三年五月十日
?。ㄓ≌拢?/div>
China Council for the Promotion of InternationalTrade Maritime arbitration Commission AwardNO：FA(83)/OB
Claimants: solicitors of England acting on behalf of the Claiments Cargo Underwriters…Respondents…The shipowners…
…Solicitors England, acting on behalf of the Claiments Cargo Underwriters submitted to the Maritime Arbitration Commission for arbitration a dispute with the Respondents, the Shipowners…over shortage and infestation of the cassava starch shipped on board the m. v. “Yangchun” owned by the Respondents.
Pursuant to the Procedural Rules of Arbitration of the Maritime Arbitration Commission, the Chairman of the Commission, upon authorization of the respective parties, appointed Mr Chang Chienchen and Mr Kao Ghunlai as arbitrators. The two arbitrators jointly selected Mr Shao Shunyi as presiding arbitrator, thus forming the arbitration tribunal to examine the case.
I . Facts and Submission of the Parties
The m. v. “Yangchun” laden with 500 metric tons of cassava starch in 20 000 bags sailed from Whampoa for Le Havre, France on 31st May, 1979 and arrived at Le Havre on 20th July, The discharge of the cargo Was; commenced on the same day and completed on 21st July, The cargo ^as discharged direct into 12 railway wagons. Upon discharge, 131 bags of cassava starch were found to be torn and part-empty. On 23rd July , when the cargo was transferred by rail to Nantes where the consignees were located, the sacks of cassava starch were found to be contaminated by rice weevils. The Claimants lodged a claim against the Respondents for 975 kilos of shortage, resulting from the torn and part-empty bags in the sum of FFr. 1 287. 00 and the fumigation expenses incurred in respect of the .contaminated sacks of cassaca starch, in the sum of FFr. 72 394- 19 as well as survey expenses in the sum of FFr. 3 972.00, plus interest and costs of arbitration.
On the point of the shortage of 975 kilos of cassava starch, the Claimants submitted that this was already recorded in the Proces-verbal de Constat signed by the ship agents and the consignees’ agents upon discharge of the cargo from the vessel at Le Havre. The Respondents took no exception to the above submissions.
As regards the contamination by rice weevils of the sacks of cassava starch, the Claimants submitted that according to the Cargo Surveyor's Report the damage resulted from contamination not from inherent vice as the rice weevils were found to be concentrated towards the outside of the sacks of cassava starch and not the inside and, furthermore, the cargo was infested after loading on board the vessel since the cargo had been inspected by the Guangzhou Commodity Inspection Bureau prior to loading and the Master had issued a clean bill of lading; that the cargo could not have been infested at the stage of railway transport after discharge from the vessel as, upon discharge into the wagons at Le Havre, the cargo was immediately transferred to Nantes, the duration of which being too short to allow time for contamination and, moreover, the cargo was transferred in wagons which had been despatched from different places and had previously carried iron and steel； and that the sea passage of fifty days from Whampoa to Le Havre with a temperature in the holds good for rice weevils would be sufficient to allow infestation if the vessel carried infested rice cargo in a previous voyage or if infested rice cargo was loaded in the same hold as the cassava starch. The Claimants further submitted that as the presence in the cargo of living rice weevils was noted m the Proces-verbal de Constat jointly signed by the ship agents and the Consignees’ agents at the time of discharge at Le Havre , the cargo was thus infested during the sea passage and the Respondents should be liable for the contamination of the cargo by rice weevils under bill of lading.
The Respondents submitted that the cargo in No. 2 Hold of the vessel on the present voyage comprised only general cargo, canned goods and the like f no grain or cereals of any kind being stowed in this hold, and on the two previous voyages from Whampoa to various ports in Japan the cargo carried by the vessel comprised only general cargo, steel and trucks, etc., and no grain or cereals were shipped either Hence the Sacks of cassava starch could not be contaminated by rice Weevils during the sea passage. The Respondents further submitted that since no rice weevils were discovered during the discharge at Le Havre, the carrier duly performed its obligation under the bill of lading and, thus, .were not liable for the infestation discovered at Nantes,ⅡTribunal's Opinion
The Tribunal has examined the documentary evidence and submissions of both parties and made a careful study and analysis of the possibility of cargoes being infested during the sea passage.
Mr1 Lucien Herang stated, inter alia，in his Cargo Survey Report issued at Nantes that “mais en aucun cas son (rice weevil ); cycle biologue ne peut se produire dans une farine. En outre, il n’a pas été trauve d’insecteà trove d’insece a I’interieur des sacs, mais uniquementà I’ exterieur. II s agit donc une infestation de 1’ exterieut des embailages, et non d’un vice propre de la farine de manioc qu’ls; contiennent”. On this there is no diver- geacy of opinion betwreeii the parties.
The point at issue is whether the cargo was contaminated by rice weevils during the sea passage, in other words, whether or not the insects existing on； the sacks at the time when the cargo was discharged at Le Havre. The onus lies primarily upon the Claimants of proving that the cargo in question was contaminated by rice; weevils during the sea passage. The submissions for the contamination having occurred on board the vessel is based on the Procesverbal de Constat, No. 5559 jointly signed by the shipagents and the consignees’ agents, which remarked in the bracket “presence de charancons vivants dans la merchandise”.
The Tribunal has examined the documentary evidence submitted by the Claimants. The consignees’ agents stated, inter alia, in their telex No. 2946 to the consignees dated 24th July, 1979 that “suite phones ce matin nous signalantla presence de charancons dans la merchandise, vs confirmons ou a la preception en direct sur wagons les 20 et 21 crt. Nours n’avons pas constate la presence de ce insects”. The consignees’ agents also stated, inter alia, in their letter to the consignees dated 26th July, 1979 that “Comme nous vous 1’ avons confirme par notre teiex No. 2946 du 24 courant, nous n’avons constate aucune trace d’msectes ? la receptioa de ces marchandises”, and that wsur lequel (the Proces-verbal de Constat) nous avons lait mentionner ‘PRESENCE DE CHARANCONS VIVANTS DANS LA MARCHANDISE’ The Tribunal holds that the aforesaid telex and letter from the consignees, agents who first and direct witnessed the condition of the cargo at the time of discharge are of greater weight than the Proces-verbal de Constat signed four days afterwards. Therefore，the Claimants have failed to discharge their onus of proof , and in these circumstances 9 whether the rice weevils originated possibly from the rail wagons is of no decisive significance. The Tribunal would, however, point out that according to the biological cycle of the rice weevils as stated by the Claimants, Surveyor, the possibility of the contamination of cargo by rice weevils in wagons could only be ruled out either by presenting a survey report showing that no insects existed in each wagon prior to taking in the cargo, or by proving that those wagons had not, in a sufficient long period, carried any cargo likely to be contaminated by rice weevils. But the Claimants failed to submit such evidence.
?、? Decision
1.The Respondents shall be liable for the shortage of 975 kilos of cassava starch and indemnify the Claimants the sum of FFr. 1 287. 00 plus interest at a rate oi 7% per annum commencing from the date of 21st July, 1979.
2.The Respondents shall not be liable for the contamination by rice weevils of the sacks of cassava starch thus the Claimants’ claim for expenses of fumigation and survey fails.
3.The arbitration fee for the present case is set at…and the actual expenses amount to…, The total sum comes to… of which the Claimants to bear…and the Respondents… The Claimants, having advanced arbitration fee in the sum of… shall pay to the Maritime Arbitration Commission a further sum of…This decision is final.
Umpire(signed)
Arbitrator (signed)
Arbitrator(signed)
Peking, May 10, 1983
Maritime Arbitration Commission.
(stamp)
