According to Article 50(1) of Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China
(“CMC”), delay in delivery occurs only when the goods have not been delivered at
the designated port of discharge within the time expressly agreed upon. Since the
time of delivery of the goods is seldom expressly agreed in a bill of lading, cases of
delay in delivery are virtually unheard of in Chinese judicial practice. As such,
carrier liability for damages for delivery of the goods without presentation of the
original bill of lading is not discussed in this paper. Determination of the scope of
compensation involves resolution of the extent of loss or damage and heads of
damages, that is, items for compensation, including calculation of the amount of
compensation, the system of package limitation of liability and its exceptions. This
paper begins with the introduction of relevant provisions in the CMC. By comparing
with the relevant provisions of international conventions, the paper will attempt to
show the lack of relevant provisions on damages in the CMC and put forward some
reasonable proposals for improving and hopefully perfecting the CMC.
2 Sea Carriage Disputes in China’s Maritime Judicial
Practice
As a major trading power and shipping country, cases on compensation for damage
of goods can hardly be avoided. Thus, disputes over the contract of carriage of goods
by sea occupy a large proportion of the dockets of Chinese Maritime Courts.
Notably, in 2017, Guangzhou Maritime Court accepted 1183 maritime cases, of
which 422 were disputes involving contracts of carriage of goods by sea, which
comprised 35.7% of all the first instance maritime cases.
1 Shanghai Maritime Court
accepted 3914 first instance maritime cases; 487 disputes of them related to contracts
of carriage of goods by sea or by the waters connected to sea, which comprised
12.4% of the first instance maritime cases.
2 Ningbo Maritime Court accepted 2370
cases of maritime disputes in 2017, and the number of cases relating to contracts of
carriage of goods was 102, which comprised 4.3% of all the first instance maritime
cases.
3 Qingdao Maritime Court received 1982 maritime cases of first instance in
2017, including 149 disputes over contracts of carriage of goods by sea or by waters
connected to the sea, accounting for 7.5% of the maritime cases of first trial.
4
1 Briefing on Maritime Trials of Guangzhou Maritime Court in 2017 (http://www.gzhsfy.gov.cn/
uploadfile/files/2018/20180902/1809021115168812906.pdf). Accessed 27 November 2018.
2 Judicial Statistical Analysis of Shanghai Maritime Court in 2017 (http://shhsfy.gov.cn/hsfyytwx/
hsfyytwx/spdy1358/sftj1472/2018/03/02/2c93809961e759bb0161e79a3f880121.html). Accessed
27 November 2018.
3 Report on Zhejiang Maritime Trial in 2017 (http://www.nbhsfy.cn/court/NeiRead.aspx?id¼6908).
Accessed 27 November 2018.
4 Briefing on Maritime Trials of Qingdao Maritime Court in 2017 (http://qdhsfy.sdcourt.gov.cn/
qdhsfy/resource/cms/2018/08/2018083009224762991.pdf). Accessed 27 November 2018.
208
L. Han and S. Cai
(“CMC”), delay in delivery occurs only when the goods have not been delivered at
the designated port of discharge within the time expressly agreed upon. Since the
time of delivery of the goods is seldom expressly agreed in a bill of lading, cases of
delay in delivery are virtually unheard of in Chinese judicial practice. As such,
carrier liability for damages for delivery of the goods without presentation of the
original bill of lading is not discussed in this paper. Determination of the scope of
compensation involves resolution of the extent of loss or damage and heads of
damages, that is, items for compensation, including calculation of the amount of
compensation, the system of package limitation of liability and its exceptions. This
paper begins with the introduction of relevant provisions in the CMC. By comparing
with the relevant provisions of international conventions, the paper will attempt to
show the lack of relevant provisions on damages in the CMC and put forward some
reasonable proposals for improving and hopefully perfecting the CMC.
2 Sea Carriage Disputes in China’s Maritime Judicial
Practice
As a major trading power and shipping country, cases on compensation for damage
of goods can hardly be avoided. Thus, disputes over the contract of carriage of goods
by sea occupy a large proportion of the dockets of Chinese Maritime Courts.
Notably, in 2017, Guangzhou Maritime Court accepted 1183 maritime cases, of
which 422 were disputes involving contracts of carriage of goods by sea, which
comprised 35.7% of all the first instance maritime cases.
1 Shanghai Maritime Court
accepted 3914 first instance maritime cases; 487 disputes of them related to contracts
of carriage of goods by sea or by the waters connected to sea, which comprised
12.4% of the first instance maritime cases.
2 Ningbo Maritime Court accepted 2370
cases of maritime disputes in 2017, and the number of cases relating to contracts of
carriage of goods was 102, which comprised 4.3% of all the first instance maritime
cases.
3 Qingdao Maritime Court received 1982 maritime cases of first instance in
2017, including 149 disputes over contracts of carriage of goods by sea or by waters
connected to the sea, accounting for 7.5% of the maritime cases of first trial.
4
1 Briefing on Maritime Trials of Guangzhou Maritime Court in 2017 (http://www.gzhsfy.gov.cn/
uploadfile/files/2018/20180902/1809021115168812906.pdf). Accessed 27 November 2018.
2 Judicial Statistical Analysis of Shanghai Maritime Court in 2017 (http://shhsfy.gov.cn/hsfyytwx/
hsfyytwx/spdy1358/sftj1472/2018/03/02/2c93809961e759bb0161e79a3f880121.html). Accessed
27 November 2018.
3 Report on Zhejiang Maritime Trial in 2017 (http://www.nbhsfy.cn/court/NeiRead.aspx?id¼6908).
Accessed 27 November 2018.
4 Briefing on Maritime Trials of Qingdao Maritime Court in 2017 (http://qdhsfy.sdcourt.gov.cn/
qdhsfy/resource/cms/2018/08/2018083009224762991.pdf). Accessed 27 November 2018.
208
L. Han and S. Cai