By using Wolters Kluwer database, one Chinese maritime lawyer researched and
collected 183 judgements handed down by Chinese Maritime Courts and their
Appeal Courts relating to disputes over contracts of carriage of goods by sea or by
waters connected to the sea from January 1 to December 31, 2016. These judgements
were classified and counted according to the specific claims of the cases, as depicted
in Fig. 1.
5
From Fig. 1, the first instance cases of claims for damage to goods, losses of
goods and freight payments caused by delivery of goods without presentation of the
bill of lading account for 28%, 36%, 22% respectively. In the second instance, the
proportion is about 6%, 39% and 31% respectively. Therefore, it can be seen from
both first trial and second trial cases that, three major groups of issues which arise
from contract of carriage of goods by sea are disputes over payment of freight,
damage to goods, and delivery of goods without presenting the bill of lading. All of
them involve traditional claims.
Clearly, shippers from different countries have commercial interests in the
imports and exports of Chinese goods. Shipping companies as carriers also have
such interests since they are responsible for performing the shipping contract. Since
cases which relate to compensation for damaged cargo and losses which arise from
delivery of goods without presentation of the original bill of lading affect the
legitimate interests of both domestic and foreign cargo owners and carriers profoundly, therefore, Chinese Maritime Courts and corresponding Courts of Appeal
pay considerable attention to these two types of cases.
3 Scope of Compensation for Loss of Goods Under CMC
Article 46(1) of the CMC stipulates that—“during the period the carrier is in charge
of the goods, the carrier shall be liable for the loss of or damage to the goods, except
as otherwise provided for in this Section.”
6 Article 55 provides the method for
calculating the amount of compensation for the loss of the goods, namely, “the
5 Wang (2017).
6 Article 51 of the Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China 1993 provides that the carrier
shall not be liable for the loss of or damage to the goods occurred during the period of carrier’s
responsibility arising or resulting from any of the following causes: (1) Fault of the Master, crew
members, pilot or servant of the carrier in the navigation or management of the ship; (2) Fire, unless
caused by the actual fault of the carrier; (3) Force majeure and perils, dangers and accidents of the
sea or other navigable waters; (4) War or armed conflict; (5) Act of the government or competent
authorities, quarantine restrictions or seizure under legal process; (6) Strikes, stoppages or restraint
of labour; (7) Saving or attempting to save life or property at sea; (8) Act of the shipper, owner of the
goods or their agents; (9) Nature or inherent vice of the goods; (10) Inadequacy of packing or
insufficiency or illegibility of marks; (11) Latent defect of the ship not discoverable by due
diligence; (12) Any other causes arising without the fault of the carrier or his servant or agent.
The provision is mainly derived from Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Hague Rules 1924, and the
specific exemption is essentially the same.
Compensation for Cargo Damage in International Maritime Transportation:. . .
209
collected 183 judgements handed down by Chinese Maritime Courts and their
Appeal Courts relating to disputes over contracts of carriage of goods by sea or by
waters connected to the sea from January 1 to December 31, 2016. These judgements
were classified and counted according to the specific claims of the cases, as depicted
in Fig. 1.
5
From Fig. 1, the first instance cases of claims for damage to goods, losses of
goods and freight payments caused by delivery of goods without presentation of the
bill of lading account for 28%, 36%, 22% respectively. In the second instance, the
proportion is about 6%, 39% and 31% respectively. Therefore, it can be seen from
both first trial and second trial cases that, three major groups of issues which arise
from contract of carriage of goods by sea are disputes over payment of freight,
damage to goods, and delivery of goods without presenting the bill of lading. All of
them involve traditional claims.
Clearly, shippers from different countries have commercial interests in the
imports and exports of Chinese goods. Shipping companies as carriers also have
such interests since they are responsible for performing the shipping contract. Since
cases which relate to compensation for damaged cargo and losses which arise from
delivery of goods without presentation of the original bill of lading affect the
legitimate interests of both domestic and foreign cargo owners and carriers profoundly, therefore, Chinese Maritime Courts and corresponding Courts of Appeal
pay considerable attention to these two types of cases.
3 Scope of Compensation for Loss of Goods Under CMC
Article 46(1) of the CMC stipulates that—“during the period the carrier is in charge
of the goods, the carrier shall be liable for the loss of or damage to the goods, except
as otherwise provided for in this Section.”
6 Article 55 provides the method for
calculating the amount of compensation for the loss of the goods, namely, “the
5 Wang (2017).
6 Article 51 of the Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China 1993 provides that the carrier
shall not be liable for the loss of or damage to the goods occurred during the period of carrier’s
responsibility arising or resulting from any of the following causes: (1) Fault of the Master, crew
members, pilot or servant of the carrier in the navigation or management of the ship; (2) Fire, unless
caused by the actual fault of the carrier; (3) Force majeure and perils, dangers and accidents of the
sea or other navigable waters; (4) War or armed conflict; (5) Act of the government or competent
authorities, quarantine restrictions or seizure under legal process; (6) Strikes, stoppages or restraint
of labour; (7) Saving or attempting to save life or property at sea; (8) Act of the shipper, owner of the
goods or their agents; (9) Nature or inherent vice of the goods; (10) Inadequacy of packing or
insufficiency or illegibility of marks; (11) Latent defect of the ship not discoverable by due
diligence; (12) Any other causes arising without the fault of the carrier or his servant or agent.
The provision is mainly derived from Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Hague Rules 1924, and the
specific exemption is essentially the same.
Compensation for Cargo Damage in International Maritime Transportation:. . .
209