【案例】红土镍矿是否适运谁说了算？ ——中国法院的最新判例

来源：中国船东互保协会资讯平台

红土镍矿的安全运输问题近年来引起国际关注。中国法院的最新判例表明，《国际海运固体散货规则》（IMSBC）应当适用于红土镍矿的安全运输。船长对于红土镍矿是否适运应持谨慎的判断标准，在肉眼可见货物潮湿情况严重，规格小于7毫米的小颗粒货物占比较高且含水量超过适运水分极限的情况下，即使大颗粒货物的含水量较低，船长亦可基于其专业判断，为确保船、货和人员的共同安全，有权作出停航、晒货、检验等决定，承运人无需为此承但运输合同项下的违约责任。

红土镍矿的安全运输问题是近年来国际航运界所共同关心的热点话题。尤其是2010 年10 月底至12 月初，巴士海峡附近及以北水域连续发生5起船舶沉没恶性事故。本案纠纷发生于2011年初，涉案船舶的船长为确保运输安全而选择停航晒货。该行为是否构成违约，承运人是否应承担违约责任？

案情

2011年1月28日，A轮驶抵印度尼西亚开始受载货物直至2月11日结束。2月12日，船长签发全套正本清洁提单。此后，船长认为货物含水较多可能影响航行安全，故A轮停靠装货港锚地，进行晒货、检验等操作。3月27日，A轮驶往菲律宾并于3月29日抵达，继续进行晒货、检验等操作。5月16日，A轮驶往目的港连云港并最终于5月23日抵达。

装货前，托运人曾出具两份货物申报单表明货物适运。装货期间雨水较多，在装货过程中委托检验，结果表明货物含水量超标。装货结束后又委托多家机构进行货物水分检验，检验报告将货物分为大小两种颗粒分别给出结论，但未对货物整体含水量是否超标作出明确判断。

原告（收货人）诉称，被告进行不合理绕航，应赔偿原告货物市场价格下跌的价差损失。被告（船东）辩称，被告系为确保船、货安全采取合里措施，原告无权要求赔偿。

判决

该案审判过程历时3年零6个月，经历了一审判决、二审判决，以及最高院关于是否受理再审的审查程序。

最高人民法院在其终审裁定中认为：

（一）《散货规则》适用于涉案红土镍矿运输。托运人出具的货物申报单系单方声明，不能作为判断货物是否适运的证据。承运人签发清洁提单表明货物外表状况良好，仅涉及货物品质问题，不能以承运人签发清洁提单认定其初步认可货物适运。货物装运后形成的各份检验报告均没有载明大颗粒货物的适运水分极限和整批货物的适运水分极限，故依据《散货规则》的规定，在承运人已有初步合理理由怀疑货物不适运的基础上，根据后续检验报告中指出的占比较高的小颗粒货物水分超标的结论，应认定承运人在装货港判断货物不适合安全运输的理据相对充分。

（二）收货人既未能证明其已将货物转卖的真实性，亦未能证明其转卖价格的合理性，故其主张存在损失没有事实基础。

评析 

一、IMSBC适用于红土镍矿运输

我国作为《经修正的1974年国际海上人命安全公约》的缔约国，IMSBC依据该公约成为强制性规则，并于2011年1月1日对我国生效。该规则第1.7.5条款规定：“易流态化货物系指至少含有部分细颗粒和一定量水分的货物。在运输中，如果这些货物的水分含量超过其适运水分极限，会流态化。”红土镍矿的特性符合这一定义。中国交通运输部于2011年11月9日颁布《水路运输易流态化固体散装货物安全管理规定》，其中第四条明确指出红土镍矿属于易流态化固体散装货物。三级法院均认定IMSBC应当适用于红土镍矿的安全运输。

二、船长有权对于货物是否适运进行判断

IMSBC中所列明的测试适运水分极限的实验方法只适用于最大粒度为7毫米的物质，因此本案中多个检验机构在检验时均将货物筛分为大小两种颗粒，对于小颗粒能够对比其水分含量与适运水分极限，而对于大颗粒则只能测量其水分含量。一审法院认为，IMSBC对于“危险性条件”的规定，是货物含有一定比例的小颗粒和一定水分，在航行中易流态化，进而导致货物移动，故引发危险的决定性因素是小颗粒货物。因此，在小颗粒货物占较大比例的情况下，船长根据检验中小颗粒货物的含水量超过适运水分极限的结果判断货物不适运具有合理性。而二审法院则认为，大颗粒的水分含量明显低于小颗粒的水分含量，船方仅选取小颗粒货物进行数据对比，从而认定货物整体上不适运，依据尚不充分。最高法院的态度同一审较为接近，综合考虑了装货时的天气情况、小颗粒物质所占比例以及对比双方相关证据与理由，最终认定承运人判断货物不适运的理据相对充分。从最终裁判结果上看，最高法院的立场无疑具有指导意义，即在无法通过检测得到明确结论时，船长对于货物是否适运应综合考虑多方因素，并采取谨慎的标准进行判断。

三、船长在可能危及海上人命安全时的决定权

《经修正的1974年国际海上人命安全公约》在其34-1条中对“船长的决定权”有明确规定，即船舶所有人、承租人以及经营该船舶的公司或任何其他人员，均不得阻止或限制船舶的船长做出或执行根据船长的专业判断认为对于海上人命安全来说所必要的任何决定。中国是该公约的缔约国，公约条款在中国具有法律效力。船长只要基于其专业判断，认为有可能危及海上人命安全的，就有权在必要的限度内行使其决定权，而不受任何其他人员的干扰。当然，还需注意的是，船长决定权的行使并非没有限度，而是应当在必要合理的范围内。本案中，船舶后续开往菲律宾继续晒货、检验，其合理性与必要性容易遭到怀疑。最高法院最终认定，该菲律宾港口离原本的习惯航线距离较近，船舶航行至此系为了船舶、船员和货物的共同安全考虑，故属于《海商法》下规定的“其他合理绕航”。关于船长决定权的规定，其实质是人命安全至上的人道主义价值取向，一审判决明确引用公约规定，终审裁定虽未适用，但其精神贯穿始终，应当说是充分尊重了船长在可能危及人命安全时的决定权。

本案例由瀛泰律师事务所提供

Facts

On 28 January 2011, vessel A arrivedatIndonesia for cargo loading, and the loading continued until 11 February. On12February 2011, the master issued a full set of original clean bill oflading.After that, the master suspected that the laterite nickel ore was notsuitablefor safe carriage because of the high moisture content, so vessel Astayed atthe anchorage of loading port for sun-drying and testing. On 27March, vessel Aproceeded to Philippines, and arrived and stayed there since 29March, still forsun-drying and testing. On 16 May, vessel A departed fromPhilippines andproceeded to Lianyungang Port, and arrived on 23 Mayeventually.

Before loading, theshipper issued two CargoDeclarations indicating that the cargo was suitablefor safe carriage. Theweather was very rainy during the loading operation, andeven free water wasfound in two holds. Two reports indicated that the moisturecontent of the cargoin above-mentioned two holds was in excess of its TMLduring loading period.After loading, a series of testing were carried out bydifferent inspectionorganizations. The relevant reportsdivided the cargo into small particles(<7mm) and large particles (>7mm).The small particles, the proportion ofwhich islarger, had the moisture contentexceeding its TML, while the largeparticles, taking a smaller proportion, hadlower moisture content. However, noreports indicated explicitly whether themoisture content of whole cargo wasbeyond the limitation.

The Plaintiff (the consignee) claimsthat, theDefendant made an unjustifiable deviation, and shall thus be liableforcompensation for its significant losses in cargo’s market price. TheDefendant(the ship owner) defends that, it made correct decisions andtookreasonablemeasures for the common safety of the hull, cargo and crew, sothe Plaintiff hasno right to claim for compensation.

Court’sDecision

The whole court process of this caselasted for3 years and 6 months, going through the judgments by the 1st and the2ndinstances, as well as the Court Decision by the Supreme People’s Court.

The Supreme People’s Court holdsthat: 1) TheIMSBC Code was applicable to the carriage of the lateritenickel ore. The twosets of Cargo Declarations issued by the shipper, statingthat the moisturecontent of the cargo was below its TML, were only unilateralstatements, whichalone could not prove that the cargo was suitable for safecarriage. That thecarrier issued a set of original clean bill of lading onlyreflected that thecargo was in apparent good order. The carrier shall not bedeemed to haveaccepted the cargo as being suitable for safe carriage onlybecause of theissuance of clean bill of lading by the carrier. All the surveyreports aftercargo loading never state about the TML for particles with a size>7mm, norabout the TML for the whole cargo. In accordance with the IMSBCCode and basedon the evidence respectively presented by the shipper andthe carrier, the Courtshould determine that it is justifiable for the carrierto judge that the cargowas not suitable for safe carriage at the port ofloading. 2) The shipper failedto prove the actual resale of the cargo and thereasonableness of the resaleprice. Therefore, there was no basis for thealleged economic loss.

Comment

The issue of safe carriage oflaterite nickelore has attracted heavy attention of international shippingsociety in recentyears. Especially, from October to December 2010, 5 vesselssunk near BassStrait and its northern water area, because of accidents causedby the carriageof laterite nickel ore. This action arose at the beginning of2011. The masterchose to stop the voyage and take certain measures to ensurethe safety, whilethis act also caused a breach of contract under B/Lrelationship. The court’sattitude towards the master’s choice would have majorinfluence on similar casesin the future. We Wintell & Co., acting for theship owner to defend in the1st, the 2nd and the last instance trial, found the following 3 keypoints meritour attention:-

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

China is a contracting party toSOLASConvention 1974as amended. As per the Convention, the IMSBCCodeismandatory 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 orewithdifferent sizes. This cargo is not listed as solid bulk cargo in Appendix 1tothe IMSBC Code, whilethe IMSBC Codehowever provides that thecurrent list oftypical solid bulk cargo carried by sea is “not exhaustive” andSection 1.7.5 ofthe IMSBC Codealso states that “cargoes which mayliquefy mean cargoes whichcontain a certain proportion of fine particles and acertain amount of moisture.They may liquefy if shipped with moisture contentin excess of theirtransportable moisture limit”. The nature of laterite nickelore is of course inaccordance with this definition. In addition, Article 4 ofSafetyManagementRules for Waterway Transport of Solid Bulk Cargoes that are LiabletoLiquefypromulgated by Chinese Ministry of Transport on 9 November2011explicitly indicates that laterite nickel ore is one kind of solid bulkcargoesthat are liable to liquefy. All the three courts of different instancesheldthe same view towards this issue, i.e. the IMSBC Code shall beapplicable tothe carriage of the laterite nickel ore.

2. The criteria for masters to judgewhethersolid bulk cargoes that are liable toliquefy is suitable for safecarriage ornot

The firstgenerally accepted method for testingthe TML, flow table test, stipulated inAppendix 2 of the IMSBC Code, was designedfor mineral concentrates andother fine materials with a maximum grain size of7mm. Therefore, most of theinspection organizations in this case divided thecargo into small particlesand large particles accordingly. For small particles,the moisture content andTML could be tested and then be compared; while forlarge particles, only themoisture content could be tested but notthe TML.

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

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

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

3. Master’s discretion when safety oflife atsea is threatened

Article 34-1 “Master’s discretion” ofthe SOLASConvention 1974as amended provides that: “The owner, thecharterer, the companyoperating the ship as defined in regulation IX/1, or anyother person shall notprevent or restrict the master of the ship fromtaking orexecuting any decisionwhich, in the master’s professional judgment, isnecessary for safety of life atsea and protection of the marine environment.”As China is a contracting partyto the Convention, this article also haslegal binding force within mainlandChina. Another thingto note is that, thediscretion of a master should also beexercised within a reasonable andnecessary scope. As in this case, the masterdecided to stop at Philippines,which was not in the normal route from Indonesiato Lianyungang, so the carrierhas the burden of proving the reasonableness andnecessity of this act.Finally, the Supreme Court held that, Philippines is veryclose to the normalroute from the loading port to the destination port, thus itcould be concludedthat, it was for common safety of the ship, the crew and thecargo 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’s discretionis the respect for life. The judgment of 1stinstance citedthe Convention directly, while the Supreme Court’s decision didnot apply thisarticle directly but followed its spirit thoroughly.