We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Monday, 09 March 15
CHINA'S SUPREME COURT ISSUES NEW JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION ON SHIP ARREST AND JUDICIAL SALE OF SHIPS - GARD
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
China is not traditionally a popular jurisdiction for ship arrest. However, Members and clients with ships calling at ports in China should be aware of this development. This guidance is aimed at clarifying ship arrest and sale procedure in the Chinese maritime courts which could lead to more frequent vessel arrests in China.
This Insight is a brief commentary on a new judicial interpretation1 issued by China’s Supreme Court. It covers a number of issues relating to ship arrest and the judicial sale of ships (the Interpretation) that came into force on 1 March 2015.
Provision of counter-security for arrest
It is normal practice for a claimant to provide counter-security when arresting in China. Article 76 of the Special Maritime Procedure Law 1999 (SMPL 1999)2 provides that the amount of counter-security should be equivalent to the probable loss the arrest would cause to the party whose vessel is arrested. Over the years, the practice of the Chinese maritime courts has varied depending on the facts of the case and different approaches by individual judges. In some cases, the counter-security amount was equivalent to 30 days’ hire of the vessel, whilst in others an amount equal to the claim in respect of which the vessel was arrested.
The Interpretation sets out in Article 5 a mechanism to calculate the security amount based on the aggregate of:
- the maintenance expenses of the vessel during the period of arrest
- the loss of use resulting from the arrest
- the cost to the party whose vessel had been arrested (the respondent) to provide security to release the vessel.
This is the same formula used for assessing the losses resulting from wrongful arrest, as set out in Article 24 of the Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation of 2003 relating to application of the SMPL 1999.3
A number of factors remain unclear, however, such as:
- the level of maintenance to be carried out during the arrest period
- the applicable rate of hire while under arrest
- the scope of security costs – in practice, the maritime courts have generally only included the commission payable by the respondent to provide a bank guarantee.
Furthermore, at the time the arrest application is made – and counter-security is assessed – the respondent will not have an opportunity to substantiate or challenge the evidence submitted relating to maintenance, hire and security costs. That said, once counter security has been provided following the vessel’s arrest, the owners may apply for the amount of security to be increased in the event it can be shown that the original amount is insufficient to cover the owners’ likely losses if the arrest proves wrongful.
Although Article 5 still leaves some open questions, at least it sets out a formula to be followed.
A further clarification relating to counter-security is set out in Article 4. This provides that the maritime courts have a discretion not to request counter-security if the arrest relates to a claim for personal injury at sea or a claim arising under a crew service contract.
Multiple arrests of the same vessel
Article 2 of the Interpretation allows multiple claimants to arrest the same vessel as security for their respective claims. Further, if a claimant has made an arrest application but not applied for a judicial sale, then any subsequent claimant making an arrest application may apply for judicial sale of the vessel according to Article 28 of SMPL 1999.
The Interpretation does not, however, tackle the issue of whether each claimant having arrested the vessel must provide counter-security to the full extent of their respective claims.
Judicial sale and procedure
There are several provisions relating to the judicial sale of vessels:
- Article 11 provides that the judicial sale of a vessel is to be organized by a ship auction committee (comprising judges, auctioneers and surveyors, normally three or five persons, as per Article 34 SMPL 1999)
- Article 13 states that in the event of two failed judicial auctions, the sale price of a ship can be reduced – but not to less than 50 per cent of its assessed value
- Article 14 provides that if a ship has still not been sold after a price reduction, the court may lower the price below 50 per cent of its assessed value provided consent is given by creditors representing two thirds or more of the registered creditors’ claims. In the event a sale is still unsuccessful, the court may release the vessel from arrest
- Article 16 requires creditors to register their claims within 60 days after the court’s announcement for the first judicial auction.
Release of counter-security
The practice of the Chinese maritime courts relating to release or return of counter-security has been a concern for claimants in the past. Counter-security could be held up to two years after the claim had been settled on the basis that it represented security for a possible, subsequent wrongful arrest claim brought by the respondent.
Article 6 of the Interpretation will no doubt be welcomed by claimants. It provides that counter-security should be returned to the claimant forthwith:
- if the respondent agrees, or
- if the claimant requests its return, supported by a valid judicial instrument affirming that the respondent is liable for the claim and the awarded amount is approximately equivalent to the amount of security.
In addition, when a claim has been finally concluded, the claimant can apply to the maritime court for return of the security. The court will notify the respondent and allow them to bring any wrongful arrest claim within 30 days, failing which the security will be returned to the claimant.
Arrest and judicial sale of bareboat chartered vessels
Article 23 of SMPL 1999 allows a claimant to apply to arrest a vessel where its bareboat charterer may be liable for a maritime claim and the ship is under bareboat charter at the time of arrest. However, it has not been clear whether the claimant could apply for judicial sale of the vessel following the arrest.
This is now resolved by Article 3 of the Interpretation, which provides that the claimant is entitled to apply (under Article 29 SMPL 1999) for a judicial sale of the vessel to recover a maritime claim for which the bareboat charterer is liable.
This provision is likely to expose head owners to the possibility of their vessel being subjected to a judicial sale through no fault of their own. This might be of significant interest to a shipowner who finances a bareboat charterer to purchase a vessel.
Miscellaneous
Article 7 provides that the shipowner or bareboat charterer is to remain in charge of management of the vessel while under arrest. Should they fail to do so, the maritime court may appoint the claimant or a third party to manage the ship. In which case, the management costs are to be borne by the shipowner or bareboat charterer, or to be paid out of the proceeds of a judicial sale of the vessel.
Under Article 9, the maritime court must terminate the arrest order in the event that it is impossible to enforce the arrest for “objective reasons”. It has not been defined what amounts to “objective reasons”. One possibility could be that the vessel is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Chinese maritime courts, another that the vessel has become a total loss.
The Interpretation should result in a more common approach to arrest and judicial sale by the Chinese maritime courts. However, some issues arising under the SMPL 1999 remain to be resolved, such as whether insolvency of an owner of an arrested ship should take priority over a maritime lien. Nevertheless it is expected that this Interpretation will be generally welcomed by the maritime courts and parties involved in maritime claims.
Acknowledgement: Thanks to Wang Jing & Co for use of their in-house English translation of the Interpretation, in which further details of the changes can found.
Questions or comments concerning this Gard Insight article can be e-mailed to the Gard Editorial Team.
Source: Gard | Hellenic Shipping
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Wednesday, 11 March 15
RICHARDS BAY COAL SWAPS DROP $ 3.65 - 4.0/T W-O-W
COALspot.com: API 4 FOB Richards Bay Coal swap for delivery Q2' 2015 declined month over month and week on week.
The Q2 swap has fell US$ ...
Wednesday, 11 March 15
DRY BULK MARKET CLOSED OFF ON THE GREEN FOR A SECOND WEEK IN A ROW - INTERMODAL
COALspot.com: The Dry Bulk market closed off on the green for a second week in a row, while the performance of Capesizes hindered a more substantia ...
Wednesday, 11 March 15
MARKET INSIGHT : NEWBUILDINGS - PANOS TSILINGIRIS
From a cost-based, buy-low perspective, there is currently a buying opportunity in the second-hand dry bulk market. I am an anti-cyclical (buy-low) ...
Wednesday, 11 March 15
DRY BULK MARKET: ALL IS NOT LOST FOR A RECOVERY - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING
The low cost of commodities across the board could trigger an increase of trade among many countries, which in turn could lead to a recovery of the ...
Wednesday, 11 March 15
U.S. ELECTRIC GENERATING COMPANIES TO ADD MORE THAN 20 GW OF GENERATING CAPACITY IN 2015; 16 GW OF GENERATING CAPACITY IS EXPECTED TO RETIRE IN 2015
COALspot.com: In 2015, electric generating companies in U.S. expect to add more than 20 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale generating capacity to the ...
|
|
|
Showing 3146 to 3150 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- The University of Queensland
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- White Energy Company Limited
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
