中國國際貿(mào)易促進(jìn)委員會海事仲裁委員會
調(diào)解書
(1983)外仲字第××號
申訴人：船舶所有人×××
委托代理人：×××
褲訴人：租船人×××
申訴入船舶所有人×××的代理×××（以下簡稱船方），就 船方與被訴人租船人×××（以下簡稱租方）因“康卡?雷索盧特”輪在阿根廷布蘭卡港裝載散裝小麥所產(chǎn)生的空艙費發(fā)生爭議，根據(jù)雙方于1978年12月12日在美國新澤西州利堡簽訂的“康卡? 雷索盧特”輪船租船合同仲裁條款的規(guī)定，向海事仲裁委員會提出仲裁申請，要求租方賠償2 555公噸的空艙費65 535. 75美元，并加計利息。
根據(jù)仲裁程序暫行規(guī)則的規(guī)定，本會主席受船方和租方的委托，分別指定邵××和高××為仲裁員。兩位仲截員共同推選孫××為首席仲裁員，組成仲裁庭審理本案。
一、案情
“康”輪按租船合同規(guī)定起租后，根據(jù)租方的安排于1979年1月12日抵達(dá)第一個裝貨港阿根廷利亞孔斯蒂圖西翁港，船長書面提出要求裝載33 750長噸%，伸縮300長噸，使船舶的海水吃 水達(dá)到34英尺6英寸。
“康”輪在該港裝載20 145公噸后，于1979年1月18日抵達(dá) 第二個裝貨港布蘭卡港。1月19日租方代理書面通知船長：根據(jù)布蘭卡港務(wù)當(dāng)局的通知，布蘭卡5/6號泊位水深不超過33寒尺。 同日，“康”輪船長答復(fù)租方代理，仍然要求裝載33 750長噸，裝足 吃水34英尺6英寸，即在布蘭卡港再裝14 145公噸。
根據(jù)裝貨記錄，“康”輪在布蘭卡港實際裝載11 575公噸。根據(jù)船舶吃水檢驗報告，“康”輪裝貨完畢后的平均吃水為32英尺 9. 3英寸，如裝足吃水34英尺6英寸，尚應(yīng)加裝2 515長噸，即 2 555公噸。船方根據(jù)該報告向租方索賠2 555公噸的空艙費。
船方認(rèn)為，布蘭卡港水深下降并非涉及所有泊位，根據(jù)租船合 同第九條規(guī)定，租方有權(quán)選擇布蘭卡港的第二或第三個泊位；也可以在開敞碼頭或在錨地用駁船裝貨，但租方并未這祥做，也沒有采取其他方法裝足租船合同規(guī)定的34英尺6英寸的吃水或船長根據(jù)租船合同要求的數(shù)量，因此租方違背租船合同的規(guī)定，應(yīng)當(dāng)支付空艙費。船方還提出，根據(jù)一般的法律原則，租方應(yīng)當(dāng)保證所指定的裝卸泊位具備適當(dāng)?shù)臈l件。
租方提出，布蘭卡港裝糧泊位只有5/6號和7/8號。5/6 號泊位因挖泥，最大吃水為33英尺，不能滿足“康”輪吃水的要求，7/8 號泊位水深超過34英尺6英寸，但僅限于船長200來；的船舶可以靠泊，前“康”輪全長203米，不可能停靠7/8號泊位。再說當(dāng)時在布蘭卡港還沒有加載裝置，不可能采用船方所述的其他方法 裝足貨物。因此租方認(rèn)為產(chǎn)生空艙的原因純屬港口水深臨時下降 造成的，是人力不可抗拒的，租方不應(yīng)負(fù)責(zé)。
ニ、，仲裁庭的初步意見
租船合同第二條規(guī)定：船舶在到達(dá)蒙特維的亞或阿根廷的位 于布蘭卡以南的一個港口后，按照租船人或其代理人的指示在下述港口受載整船的散裝重糧和/或大豆和/或高粱。最后或唯一的裝港如是布蘭卡港則裝載34 000公噸；如是布宜諾斯艾利斯則裝載30 000公噸，均伸縮5%，由船方選擇。
第三條規(guī)定：……發(fā)貨人實際備妥可開裝時，船長應(yīng)以書面聲 明可以安全受載的數(shù)量。……第四條規(guī)定：最后裝港如果是布蘭卡港，運費每公噸25. 65美元，布蘭卡港的水深是34英尺6英寸。
布蘭卡港是租船合同規(guī)定的供選擇的兩個最后裝貨港之一。 “康”輪船長要求在該港裝足33 750長噸，是符合租船合同規(guī)定 的。
雙方在簽訂租船合同吋，“康”輪在布蘭卡港唯一可以裝貨的 5/6號泊位的水深可以滿足“康”輪吃水的要求和船長提出的裝貨 數(shù)量。但由于1979年1月8日布蘭卡港務(wù)局因挖泥宣布該泊位水 深不超過33英尺，致使“康”輪不能按原定安排裝貨。這是雙方在 簽訂租船合同時所不能預(yù)見的，也是雙方所不能控制的。租方并已證明，布蘭卡港水深超過34英尺6英寸的7/8號泊位，“康”輪因 超過允許的長度而不能?？浚乙矝]有在商業(yè)上可行的其它措 施可以滿足“康”輪的裝貨數(shù)童的要求。
在上述情況下，仲裁庭認(rèn)為本案租船合同訂立以后裝貨港水 深變化的風(fēng)險由誰負(fù)擔(dān)的問題，合同并無規(guī)定，也不存在公認(rèn)的、明確的國際慣例。
三、調(diào)解結(jié)果
仲裁庭根據(jù)仲裁程序暫行規(guī)則第十九條的規(guī)定在雙方當(dāng)事人 的同意下進(jìn)行了調(diào)解。雙方當(dāng)事人本著互諒互讓的精神，一致接受了仲裁庭提出的下列調(diào)解建議：
?。ㄒ唬┳夥街Ц洞皆髻r空艙費金額的50%，即32 767. 88 美元；（二）租方支付船方自1979年1月31日至1983年6月30為止的利息(按年息7%計算)10 1:30. 76美元；（三）上述兩項的總額為42 898. 64美元，租方于1983年6月 30日以前付清。
本案仲裁手續(xù)費和開支共×××美元，曲粗方和船方各負(fù)擔(dān)×××美元。
首席仲裁員孫××
仲裁員邵××
仲裁員高××
-九八三年六月十五日
?。ㄓ≌拢?/div>
China Council for the Promotion International TradeMaritime Arbitration Commission ConciliationNo. FA(83)/ ××
Plaintiff …
Agents for Owners of the said vessel…
Defendant…
In accordance with the Arbitration Clause of the Voyage Charter of the m. v. “Konkar Resolute” signed at Fort Lee, New Jersey, USA on December 12J1978, … the plaintiff, …Agents for Owners of the said vessel, … (Shipowners)submitted to the Maritime Arbitration Commission for arbitration of a dispute with the defendant, … (Charterers) over deadfreight arising from the loading of wheat in bulk at Bahia Blanca, Argentine, claiming from the Charterers a sum of US $ 65 535. 75 representing dead- freight on 2 555 metric tons, plus interest.
Pursuant to the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Maritime Arbitration Commission, the Chairman of the Commission, upon authorization of the respective parties, appointed Mr Shao Shunyi and Mr Kao Chunlai as arbitrators. The two arbitrators jointly selected Mr Sun Juilung as presiding arbitrator, thus forming the Arbitration Tribunal to examine the case.
I . Facts
The vessel, upon being delivered to and placed at the disposal of the Charterers, arrived at the first loading port, Villa Constitution, Argentine on January 12,1979, when the Master requested in writing that the Charterers load a cargo of 33 750 long tons，300 long tons more or less，at a draft of 34′06″ salt water.
Having taken in a cargo of 20 145 metric tons at Villa Con- stitucion, the vessel arrived at Bahia Blanca, the second loading port, on January 18, 1979. The Charterers’ agents notified the Master in writing on the next day that the Port Authorities recommended a sailing draft of 33 feet from Pier No. 5/6. The Master ,however, reiterated his request for a full and complete cargo of 33 750 long tons, at a draft of 34′06″ sea water, i. e. an additional load of cargo of 14 145 metric tons at Bahia Blanca.
According to the records of loading, 11 575 metric tons of cargo were actually loaded on board the vessel at Bahia Blanca. The Report of ship’s Draft Survey showed that the mean draft after completion of loading was 32l 09. 3tf and were the draft of 34r 06f, to be reached an additional load of 2 515 long tons, equivalent to 2 555 metric tons should have been made. Based on this Report the Shipowners claimed from the charterers for deadfreight in respect of 2 555 metric tons.
The Shipowners submitted that the normal depth of water at Bahia Blanca was not available at all berths. The Charterers had the right, under Clause 9 of the Charter, to shift the vessel to a second or third loading berth at Bahia Blanca. Also, the vessel could have been fully loaded at an open pier or on roads by barges. However? the Charterers failed to do so nor did they resort to other methods cither to load the vessel up to the draft of 34′06″as stipulated in the Charter; or to load the amount of car- go properly requested by the Master in accordance with the Charter. This constituted a breach by them of the provisions of the Charter and they are, therefore, liable for deadfreight.
The Shipowners further, submitted that, according to the general rule of law, a Charterer should warrant the suitability of a designated loading or discharging berth.
On the other hand, the Charterers submitted that only two berths i. e. Pier Nos. 5/6 and. 7/8 were available for loading grains at Bahia, Blanca. Due to; dredging operations, the maximum draft at Pier No. 5/6 was 33 feet salt water which could not meetthe vessels requirement. Whilst the draft at Pier No. 7/ 8 exceeded 34′ 06″, it was confined to vessels with a maximum overall length within 200 meters.' With an overall length of 203 meters the vessel in question could not of course berth alongside Pier No. 7/8. Besides, no topping off facilities were available at the time at Bahia Blanca, and it was impossible to use other methods as suggested by the Shipowners to load the vessel up to the designated draft. Such being the case, the Charterers maintained that the deadfreight arose entirely as this result of a temporary drop of draft which was a force majeur, and for which the Charterers should not be liable.
?、? Tribunal’s Preliminary Opinion
Clause 2 of the Charter provides: The said Steamer… shall…after arrival at Montevideo or at an Argentine port, not south of Bahia Blanca…proceed as ordered by Charterers or their Agents to the under-mentioned ports or places and there receive from them a full and complete cargo of heavy grains and/or soyas and/or sorghums in bulk, 34 000 metric tons if last/sole port Bahia Blanca; 30 000 metric tons if last/sole port Buenos Aires, both 5% more or less at Owners’ option.
Clause 3 of the Charter provides: … When Shippers are actually ready to commence to load, the Master to declare in Writing the maximum quantity the vessel can safely carry…Clause 4 of the Charter provides: …Freight at the rate of US $ 25. 65 completing Bahia Blanca; Draft at Bahia Blanca 34′ 06" salt water.
Bahia Blanca was one of the two last loading ports in the Charterers’ option as provided for in the Charter. The Master’s request for a full load of 33 750 long tons was in conformity with the provisions of the Charter.
At the time of concluding the Charter by the parties, the depth of draft at Pier No. 5/6, the only berth available for the vessel at Bahia Blanca, was able to meet the requirement of the vessels draft and was sufficient to enable the quantity of cargo as requested by the Master to be loaded. But as a result of the dredging carried out at Bahia Bianca, the Port Authorities announced on January 8, 1979 that the draft at the above Pier was limited to 33 feet, thus making it impossible for the vessel to load cargo as originally arranged. This was unforseeable by and beyond the control of both parties at the time the Charter was concluded. Furthermore, the Charterers had shown that despite the fact that the draft at Pier No. 7/8 at Bahia Blanca exceeded 34′ 06″, the vessel could not berth alongside because of her excessive length, there being, at the same time, no other alternatives commercially practicable to meet the requirement of the vessel as regards quantity of cargo to be loaded.
In the light of the foregoing, the Tribunal comes to the view that there is neither any provision in the Charter nor any generally recognized and clearcut international practice as to who will bear the risk of the change of the draft at loading port after the concluding of the Charter in question.
?、? Result of Conciliation
In accordance with Article 19 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal endeavoured to settle the case by conciliation with the consent of both parties. And in the spirit of mutual understanding and accommadation, the parties have accepted the Tribunal’s following suggestions:
(1)That the Charterers pay the Shipowners a sum of US $32 767. 83 representing 50% of the original claim for dead- freight;(2)That the Charterers pay the Shipowners interest in sum of US $ 10 130. 76 from January 31, 1979 to June 30, 1983 calculated at 7% per annum; and(3)That the total of the aforesaid items amounting to US $ 42 898. 64 be paid by the Charterers to the Shipowners not later than June 30, 1983.
The arbitration fee and expenses for the present case total US $ -The Shipowners and the Charterers shall each pay US $…Umpire…(signed)
Arbitrator … (signed)
Arbitrator … (signed)
Maritime Arbitration Commission
(stamp)
Peking june 15, 1983
