Guangzhou Maritime Court of the People??s Republic of China


Civil Judgment

(2003) GHFCZ No.430

(2004) GHFCZ No.57


Plaintiff	(Defendant in the Counterclaim)	:	Golden Palm Maritime S.A.

Domicile		:	Edificio Comosa, Ave., Samuel Lewis, Y Manuel Maria Icaza, 

					Panama City, Republic of Panama

Legal Rep.		:	Noboru Fujimaki, Director/General Manager

Agent ad litem	:	Chen Xiangyong, Attorney at Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm

Agent ad litem	:	Chen Xin, Attorney at Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm


Defendant (Plaintiff in the Counterclaim)	:	Guangdong Sun Font Shipping Co., Ltd.

Domicile		:	Shunfeng Mountain, Daliang, Shunde District, Foshan, 

					Guangdong, P. R. China

Legal Rep.		:	Luo Houning, General Manager

Agent ad litem	:	Chen Haojie, Attorney at Guangdong Everwin Law Office

Agent ad litem	:	Zhuang Dongxiao, Attorney at Guangdong Everwin Law Office


With regard to the case filed by the Plaintiff, Golden Palm Maritime S.A. against the Defendant Guangdong Sun Font Shipping Co., Ltd. for disputes over damages arising from ships?? collision, the Court accepted the case on 14 October 2003, and formed a collegial panel in accordance with law, of which, Judge Wu Zili served as the presiding judge, and Judge Qin Weiguo and Judge Ni Xuewei participated in the deliberation. The Defendant lodged a counterclaim within the period of evidence adduction. The Court accepted the counterclaim on 23 February 2004, and decided to consolidate the two actions. On 13 April 2004, Chen Xiangyong, the agent ad litem of the Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim), submitted to the Court the Confirmation on Completion of Evidence Production, in which, it confirmed that evidence had been produced except the evaluation conclusion on the repair period and repair costs of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. Chen Haojie, the agent ad litem of the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the Counterclaim), also submitted to the Court the Confirmation on Completion of Evidence Production, in which, it confirmed that evidence had been produced. The Court called upon the aforesaid parties to exchange evidence before trial respectively on 13 April 2004 and 22 July 2004, and conducted public hearings on the consolidated case on 22 and 23 July 2004. Chen Xiangyong, the agent ad litem of the Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim), and Chen Haojie and Zhuang Dongxiao, the agent ad litem of the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the Counterclaim), appeared before the Court to participate in the proceedings. On 22 September 2005, the parties were notified by the Court that due to the retirement of Judge Qin Weiguo, the collegial panel was altered to consist of Wu Zili, Deng Yufeng and Ni Xuwei, of which, Wu Zili served as the presiding judge. The said agents ad litem did not request for a new trial. This consolidated case has now been finalized. 


The Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim) alleged as follows: M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is owned by the Plaintiff, and operated and managed by Nissho Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ?°Nissho?±). On 17 December 2001, M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, laden with 4,200 tons of bitumen, sailed from Japan to Fuzhou, China. At 1510hrs on 21 December, the bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± owned by the Defendant contacted M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in way of the starboard cargo hold No.5, causing a V-shape crevasse of 5 meters long longitudinally and 8 meters depth vertically and other damages to M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. As a result, the bitumen loaded within the said cargo hold of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± leaked out into the waters of Minjiangkou, and the vessel got aground. After the collision, People??s Insurance Company of China, Guangdong Branch (now known as ?°PICC Property and Casualty Co., Ltd., Guangdong Branch?±, and hereinafter referred to as ?°PICC Guangdong?±), on behalf of the Defendant, provided to the Plaintiff a letter of undertaking in the amount of USD1,630,000 (unless otherwise especially stated, the currency stated below is RMB). The Plaintiff entrusted Shanghai Salvage Co., Fuzhou Station and other units to conduct probing survey for the damaged crevasse of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± under water, clean mud inside the cargo hold and leaking bitumen, carry out temporary patching for the underwater crevasse and remove underwater bitumen in Minjiangkou. The collision accident was completely attributed to the fault of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. As a result, the Plaintiff sustained the loss in the amount of USD 1,482,925.53, and the litigation costs incurred from the collision accident. Therefore the Plaintiff requested the Court to order the Defendant to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss in the amount of USD1,482,925.53 plus the interest (counted from the date of 21 December 2011 to the date of actual payment as 5% of annual interest rate), and to bear the litigation costs and other legal fees arising from this case. 


The Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim) provided the following evidential materials within the period of evidence adduction: 1. Adjustment report of collision claims; 2. Underwater diving survey report in regard to damages to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as well as the invoice and payment voucher thereof; 3. Agreement on temporary patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, and completion form as well as the invoice, receipt and payment voucher in respect of the patching; 4. Agency fee for underwater patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 5. Agreement on temporary repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, and completion form as well as the invoice, receipt and payment voucher in respect of the repair; 6. Agreement on temporary repair of damaged cabins of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, and completion form as well as the invoice, receipt and payment voucher in respect of the repair; 7. Invoice of the costs of superintendence on the repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Mawei Shipyard Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ?°Mawei Shipyard?±), and daily working records; 8. Costs of cleaning of cargo holds and daily working records, as well as the payment voucher thereof; 9. Costs of superintendence on miscellaneous work during the temporary repair, and daily working records; 10. Invoice of the costs and transportation fees in respect of the patching metal; 11. Invoice of the rental of floating crane for temporary repair works; 12, Invoice of the classification survey fee of Nippon Kaiji Kyokai; 13, Invoice of the costs of pilotage and shifting, and the operation log; 14. Invoice of the cost of salvage and salvage superintendence by tug boat, and operation log; 15. Pollution prevention-Invoice of the costs of oil fences, and operation log; 16. Pollution prevention-Receipt of the hire of small barges used to remove bitumen; 17. Invoice of the costs of survey and survey superintendence; 18. List of hired vehicles; 19. Invoices of the air ticket fees by the Owner??s superintendent; 20. Invoices and bills of hotel accommodation; 21. Communication charges; 22. Invoice of agency fee; 23. Invoice of costs of engineers and fire engines for fire watch; 24. Boarder clearance expenses incurred at Hong Kong and Shenzhen for the Owner??s superintendent; 25. Invoice of port charges for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Makiyama, Japan for permanent repair ; 26. Permanent repair costs of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 27. Travel expenses and superintendence fees of the Owner??s superintendent in China and Makiyama, Japan; 28. Costs of superintendence on permanent repair carried out by Nissho Shipping Co., Ltd. on half of the Owner in Makiyama, Japan; 29. Invoice of survey fees for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Makiyama, Japan; 30. Breakdown of loss of hire and bunker of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 31. Salvage fee of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Mingjiangkou; 32. Invoice of costs of traffic boats, the certificate of hire, and the statement of expenses thereof; 33. Invoice of charges for removal of underwater bitumen; 34. Statement of facts; 35. Sketch maps of ship??s collision and grounding; 36. Statement of the Master, Second Officer and Seamen of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 37. Inquiry record of marine traffic accident investigation carried out by Fuzhou Maritime Safety Administration of the People??s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as ?°Fuzhou MSA?±); 38. Nautical chart of the waters where the collision accident occurred; 39. Tide Table of Mingjiangkou; 40. Ship??s particulars, certificates, logbooks, engine logbooks, telegraph records of bridge and engine room, graphical record of the parameters of the turning circle, crew list and certificates of competency of the crew of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 41. Underwater diving survey report issued by Shanghai Salvage Co., in regard to damages to M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 42. Agreement on temporary patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 43. Notice issued by Fuzhou MSA, requesting M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to carry out the emergency plan and pollution-prevention measures as quickly as possible; 44. Bills of lading and manifests of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 45. Photos relating to damages to M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 46. Evaluation Report for repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; 47. Contract for removal of underwater bitumen, report of completion of removal, and acceptance report thereof; 48. Copy of the preliminary investigation report issued by Fuzhou MSA in respect of the collision accident between M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and M/V ?°Hui Yang?±; 49. Port regulations of Fuzhou port.


On 13 April 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application to the Court, requesting the Court to appoint a competent surveyor to evaluate the reasonable repair costs and time for the repair of damages to M/V ?°Hui Yang?± caused by the collision accident according to the list of ship??s repair costs applicable in China as well as the scope and extent of damages determined by China Classification Society. The Court approved such application and appointed China Classification Society Industrial Corp., Guangzhou Branch to carry out the aforesaid evaluation. On 18 June 2004, China Classification Society Industrial Corp., Guangzhou Branch issued the Evaluation Report for the Repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. The Plaintiff paid the evaluation fee in sum of RMB6, 000.


The Defendant (the Plaintiff in the Counterclaim) pleaded the defence and raised a counterclaim as follows: I. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was seaworthy in the voyage involved in the collision accident and was properly manned in accordance with the requirements of the Minimum Safe Manning Certificate. In the course of navigation, the watch officer maintained a proper lookout in accordance with the provisions of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ?°the COLREGs?±), kept M/V ?°Hui Yang?± navigating at a safe speed along the outbound channel, and complied with the rules relating to watchkeeping, and the relevant laws and regulations and port regulations. Thus M/V ?°Hui Yang?± did not contribute any fault to the development of a close-quarters situation between the two vessels, and had adopted proper measures when the collision accident became unavoidable. In view of the foregoing, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was not at fault for the collision accident and should not be liable for the damages thereof. II. After the collision, Fuzhou MSA carried out an investigation and issued an Investigation Report. It is specified in the Investigation Report that in respect of the accident M/V ?°Nissho 1?± has the following faults: 1. Negligence of Lookout. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± failed to make timely report of her movement, and turned to starboard without making appropriate signals. Thus the outbound vessel was not aware of the intention of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±in time, and the two vessels in question could not properly coordinate with each other in the course of avoiding collision. Such negligence violated the provisions of the Ru1es of the Ministry of Communication of the People??s Republic of China on Coastal Harbour Signals and Rule 5 of the COLREGs. 2. Improper Timing to Turn around. The full load draft of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is only 6.19 meters so that she can enter the port without taking the tide. However, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± proceeded hastily into the outbound channel knowing there were some deep draft vessels departing from the port by taking the tide. She endangered the navigation of other vessels and failed to apply good seamanship, which violated the provisions of Rule 8 of the COLREGs. 3. Failure in Complying with the Regulations on Navigation in Narrow Channels. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± suddenly turned to sail along the outbound channel without letting M/V ?°Hui Yang?± realize her intention, which endangered the safe navigation of outbound vessels and caused the development of a close-quarters situation. Therefore, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± violated Rule 9 of the COLREGs. In summary, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± turned around in an improper timing and failed to comply with the Regulations on Navigation in Narrow Channels, which constituted the main cause of this collision accident. Therefore, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± shall bear the main responsibility for the accident. III. After the accident, the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively entrusted survey companies to investigate damages to their vessels caused by the collision accident. According to the Survey Report of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± issued by Guang Dong Maritime Engineering Consulting & Survey Co., Ltd., the cost of permanent repair was estimated to be USD100, 000 on the basis of the local price standard, the cost of temporary repair was about USD40, 000, and the cost of cleaning up tank No.5 and outer shell of tanktop was estimated respectively to be USD100,000 and USD10,000. The time for cleaning up and temporary repair was estimated respectively to be 15 working days and 7 working days. The aforesaid costs of cleaning up totally amounted to USD250,000. However, the repair costs claimed by the Plaintiff in the Statement of Complaint reached USD700,000. Such huge cost was due to the Plaintiff??s failure in repairing the vessel in the nearest place available as required by law. Therefore, the Defendant shall not be held liable for the aggravated part of the losses incurred from the Plaintiff??s fault. IV. After the accident, the Defendant entrusted Guang Dong Maritime Engineering Consulting & Survey Co., Ltd. to carry out a survey on M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. Guang Dong Maritime Engineering Consulting & Survey Co., Ltd. issued a Survey Report and suggested permanent repair to M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± suffered the loss in sum of RMB3,019,197.25 due to the collision accident, including the costs arising from unloading the goods carried onboard M/V ?°Hui Yang?± before entering into the dock for repair. The Defendant requested the Court to dismiss the claims raised by the Plaintiff, and filed a counterclaim requesting the Court to order the Plaintiff to compensate the Defendant for the loss and survey costs in sum of RMB3,019,197.25 plus the interests thereof (computed from the date when the expenses were incurred to the date when all the expenses are paid as per the loan interest rate published by the People??s Bank of China at the corresponding period), and order the Plaintiff to bear the litigation costs arising from the case. 


The Defendant (the Plaintiff in the Counterclaim) submitted the following evidence within the period of adducing evidence: 1. Certificate of vessel??s survey, certificates of seafearers, minimum safe manning certificate, logbooks, and telegraph record of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±; 2. Marine traffic accident report issued by the master of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±; 3. Nautical chart; 4. Notice of Fuzhou MSA on Printing and Issuing the Investigation Report of the Collision between M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and M/V ?°Hui Yang?±; 5. Survey report of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± as well as the invoice thereof; 6.Final statement and certificate of telegraphic transfer for temporary repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±; 7. Contract of repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± and the project sheet of Wenwan Ship Repair Yard in Lianjiang town, Fujian province (hereinafter referred to as ?°Wenwan Ship Repair Yard?±); 8. Contract of unloading of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±, and invoice of the charges for survey, agency, tug??s service, pilotage and forced discharge as well as the losses sustained by the MSA and fishermen involved in the accident; 9. Certificate of telegraphic transfer of the China Merchants Bank (receipt); 10. Time charter party; 11. Vouchers and invoice of travel expenses; 12. Survey report of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± issued by Guang Dong Maritime Engineering Consulting & Survey Co., Ltd. and the charges thereof. 


The Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim) raised the following defence: I. The Defendant claimed for losses in sum of RMB3,019,197.25 without providing any detailed breakdown thereof. In addition, even calculating as per the evidence submitted by the Defendant, we still could not come to such result; 2. Although Fuzhou MSA issued an Investigation Report in respect of the accident, according to the judicial practice of maritime courts, investigation reports issued by Maritime Administrative Authorities are not necessarily adopted by the maritime courts. The Defendant requested the Court to determine the facts and ascertain the liabilities by taking full consideration of the evidence submitted by both parties. 


Through trial, it is ascertained as follows:


i.	Shi??s Conditions and Manning of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


1.	M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and the Crew


Pursuant to the Certificate of Registry of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, the vessel was built by Murakami Hide Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereiafter referred as to ?°Murakami Hide?±) on 17 June 1997 and was registered with the Panama Merchant Marine Registry. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is an asphalt tanker owned by the Plaintiff, with the overall length of 97.18meters, breadth of 17.8meters, depth of 8.5meters, gross tonnage of 3,964, net tonnage of 1,190, and main engine power of 3,600h.p. On 26 August 1997, Nippon Kaiji kyokai issued the Classification Certificate to M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. At the time of the accident, M/V ?°Nissho?± was manned with 16 Philippine seamen holding valid certificates of competency issued by the competent Philippine authority; the vessel was properly manned in accordance with the requirements of the minimum safe manning, and these seamen were all healthy. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± held legal and valid technical certificates. 


As regards the Ship Management Agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and Nissho on 1 June 1997 as submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant admitted this Agreement. The Ship Management Agreement provided that: the Plaintiff entrusts Nissho to manage  M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; Nissho is responsible for issues relating to technical management, insurance, accounting and supply, but not responsible for issues relating to the crew management, freight, chartering, sales and purchase of the vessel, bunker and vessel??s operation. Part II of the Agreement defined the terms contained therein. Technical management was defined to include: providing competent personnel to supervise the maintenance and performance of the vessel; arranging and supervising vessel??s entering into the dry dock as well as the repair; altering and maintaining the vessel in conditions required by the shipowner; ship??s manager is entitled to make necessary payment so as to ensure the vessel complies with the requirements set forth in the laws of the flag state and the navigational areas, and all the requirements and suggestions provided by the classification society. Accounting management was defined to include: establishing an accounting system as required by the shipowner; providing accounting services and submitting relevant report and records on a periodically basis; keeping record of all necessary or appropriate expenses having been settled between the parties, as well as the time thereof. Chartering Management meaned: ship??s manager should provide chartering service according to the instructions of the shipowner, including but not limited to, looking for and negotiating the use of the vessel, concluding (including performing) charter parties or other contracts relating to the use of the vessel. The chartering management clause shall apply when ship??s manager is in charge of the vessel??s chartering. The Agreement also provided that: all the costs and expenses paid by ship??s manager on behalf of the shipowner in accordance with the provisions contained therein shall be deemed as the debt owned by the shipowner to the bank account designated in the Agreement; However, the shipowner shall, in any case, pay for such debt upon the request by ship??s manger; ship??s manager is entitled to transfer any of his/her obligations to another party without prior consent of the shipowner; ship??s manager shall deal with and settle all the claims arising out of the management, and notify the shipowner of any claim or dispute involving a third party that arises or may arise; ship??s manager shall, as per the instructions of the shipowner, file or defend a lawsuit with regard to the acts relating to the issues he/she is entrusted in the Agreement. Appendix B to the Agreement is ship??s name and particulars of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. 


2.	M/V ?°Hui Yang?± and the Crew


M/V ?°Hui Yang?± is a steel general cargo ship owned by the Defendant, with the overall length of 148.66meters, breath of 20.4meters, depth of 12.4meters, gross tonnage of 10,234, net tonnage of 6,174, and main engine power of 3,600kw. The vessel was built on 15 October 1977. At the time of the accident, the vessel was manned with 28 Chinese seamen holding valid certificates of competency issued by the Maritime Safety Administration of the People??s Republic of China; the vessel was properly manned in accordance with the requirements set forth in the minimum safety manning certificate, and these seamen were all in good healthy condition. In addition, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± held legal and valid technical certificates. 


ii.	Investigation Report issued by Fuzhou MSA


The Plaintiff submitted a copy of the Preliminary Investigation Report in respect of the Collision Accident between M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and M/V ?°Hui Yang?± issued by Fuzhou MSA, whilst the Defendant submitted the original copy of the Notice of Fuzhou MSA on Printing and Issuing the Investigation Report of the Collision between M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and M/V ?°Hui Yang?± (hereinafter referred to as ?°the Investigation Report?±). The Collegial Panel holds that: without the original document, the authenticity of the copy submitted by the Plaintiff can not be verified; the Defendant submitted the original copy of the Investigation Report, of which, the Plaintiff was not in denial; therefore, the Investigation Report submitted by the Defendant should be adopted. The Defendant had no objection to the Investigation Report. The Plaintiff raised objection to the part of ?°Cause Analysis?±, as well as the date of built of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and the time of collision specified therein, by contending that M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was actually built in June 1997, rather than in 1996; the collision occurred at 1512hrs on 21 December 2001 rather than at 15101/2hrs on 21 December 2001. The Defendant had no objection to the remaining parts of the Investigation Report. Therefore, the collegial panel hereby ascertains the indisputable facts. 


iii.	Weather and Sea Conditions at the Time of the Accident


At post meridiem on 21 December 2001, in the accident waters: fair to cloudy, good visibility, northeast wind of 4 degree, around high slack tide, flood current at the speed of 1knot.


iv.	Facts concerning the Collision Accident


On 21 December 2001, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was loaded with 12,600tons of river sand at Qingzhou container terminal of Fuzhou port, with fore draft of 9.2meters and after draft of 9.3meters. At 1250hrs, the pilot embarked the vessel and commenced pilotage to Shanghai port. At 1455hrs, the vessel, when passing Jinpai Men, noticed two cargo vessels in the pilot anchorage, of which, the closer one, namely M/V ?°Wondrous?±, with her heading towards east, anchored at the position of 26??07'52"N 119??37'58" E, and the other one was M/V ?°Nissho 1?± heading to the northeast. At 1503hrs, when M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was passing by Mazu Yin light buoy, M/V ?°Wondrous?± was 0.7nms away from M/V ?°Hui Yang?±, at about 5?? on the starboard bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. At 1505hrs, after the pilot disembarked the vessel, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± stopped engine and altered her course from 103?? to 105??. At 150 hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± proceeded dead slow ahead. At 1508hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± passed on the port side (north) of M/V ?°Wondrous?±. At that time, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was about 0.38nms away from the bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. In order to avoid M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, the master of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± ordered the vessel to go starboard 10, starboard 20, and hard-a-starboard; M/V ?°Hui Yang?± stop engine at 1509hrs; at 1510hrs, the vessel went full astern, but they failed to stop M/V ?°Hui Yang?± immediately by reason of her great inertia and stopping distance. At about 15101/2hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± collided into the middle of the starboard side of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± nearly at a right angle, at that time M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was at the course of 142??, and finally stopped at 1511hrs. At 15111/4hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± went dead slow ahead in order to minimize water ingress into the crevasse. At 1516hrs, upon the request of the pilot of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± stopped engine. At 1520hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was pushed to the shallow by the tide and got aground there. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± also got aground. 


On 17 December 2001, M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, laden with 4,200tons of bitumen, departed from Water Island, Japan. At 0215hrs on 21 December, she arrived at Baita pilot anchorage of Fuzhou port, waiting for entry with fore draft of 5.28meters and after draft of 16.19meters. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± anchored at the position of 26??07'48"N 119??37'17"E. At 1450hrs, the pilot embarked the vessel. At 1452hrs, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± started to heave up anchor. At 1500hrs, anchor was clear away, and the vessel??s bow was heading to 086??. At 1502hrs, in order to keep out of the way of the outbound vessel M/V ?°Heng Shunfa 18?±, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± headed to the light buoy of Yundou Kou and adjusted her position. After the outbound vessel M/V ?°Heng Shunfa 18?± passed on the starboard side of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, the pilot of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± observed M/V ?°Hui Yang?± went slow ahead and the pilot boat was approaching M/V ?°Hui Yang?± to pick up the pilot, and therefore instructed M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to turn to starboard. At 1508hrs, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± altered her course to 277?? and changed her speed from half slow ahead to full ahead. At that time, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± just passed M/V ?°Wondrous?±, and started to turn to starboard. The pilot of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± mistakenly believed that M/V ?°Hui Yang?± took the aforesaid measures so as to avoid the Xifengshi reef in the north of the channel, and therefore decided to turn to port so as to sail to the south of the channel and to keep out of the way by passing from the south of M/V ?°Wondrous?±. The pilot later immediately observed that M/V ?°Hui Yang?± alter her course to starboard substantially and rushed towards M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. In order to avoid collision, at 1509hrs, the pilot ordered M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to make port 10, port 20 till hard-a-port; at 15093/4hrs, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± stopped engine; at 15101/4hrs, the vessel went full astern. At about15101/2hrs, the bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± collided into the starboard cargo hold No.5 of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± nearly at right angle. At that time, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was at the course of 243??. At 1512hrs, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± stopped engine. 


With regard to the time of collision between the aforesaid vessels, it was recorded to be at 1512hrs in the logbooks of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and at 1510hrs in the engine logbooks thereof, whilst 15101/2hrs was recorded in the logbooks of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. The Collegial Panel holds that the difference between the times as respectively claimed by the parties is about 1.5minutes, which will not affect the calculation of losses caused by the accident as well as the liabilities thereof. The time of the accident may be determined in accordance with the time ascertained by Fuzhou MSA, that is, 15101/2hrs on 21 December 2001.


v.	Cause Analysis and Apportionment of Liabilities made by Fuzhou MSA in Respect of the Collision Accident


Fuzhou MSA determined the following causes to have caused the collision accident in the Investigation Report:


1.	M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


(1)	Failure in Maintaining a Proper Lookout. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± observed the vessels in the pilot anchorage immediately after she passed by Jinpai Men. The master of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was not sufficiently aware of the movement of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, and still failed to keep VHF 16 clear and to communicate with M/V ?°Nissho 1?± on avoidance, as a result of which, he was unable to make a full appraisal of the situation and the risk. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± violated the provisions of Rule 5 of the COLREGs. 


(2)	Failure in Applying Good Seamenship and Taking Proper avoiding Measures under a Close-quarters Situation. The master failed to apply good seamanship according to the common practice of seamen. When departing from the port, he did not request to spare anchor, and failed to take proper measures to control the vessel under a close-quarters situation. It was against the provisions of Rule 2 and Rule 8 of the COLREGs for M/V ?°Hui Yang?± to substantially alter her course to starboard when there were no sufficient waters in her starboard side.


(3)	Failure in Taking Due Regard to Make a Departure from the Rules under an Immediate Danger. The master merely insisted on turning to starboard, and failed to take due regard to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± violated the provision of Rule 2 of the COLREGs.


2.	M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


(1)	Negligence of Lookout. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± failed to make timely report of her movement, and turned to starboard without making appropriate signals. Thus the outbound vessel was not aware of the intention of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±in time, and the two vessels in question could not properly coordinate with each other in the course of avoiding collision. Such negligence violated the provisions of the Ru1es of the Ministry of Communication of the People??s Republic of China on Coastal Harbour Signals and Rule 5 of the COLREGs. 


(2)	Improper Timing to Turn around. The full load draft of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is only 6.19 meters so that she can enter the port without taking the tide. However, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± proceeded hastily into the outbound channel knowing there were some deep draft vessels departing from the port by taking the tide. She endangered the navigation of other vessels and failed to apply good seamanship, which violated the provisions of Rule 8 of the COLREGs. 


(3)	Failure in Complying with the Regulations on Navigation in Narrow Channels. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± suddenly turned to sail along the outbound channel without letting M/V ?°Hui Yang?± realize her intention, which endangered the safe navigation of outbound vessels and caused the development of a close-quarters situation. Therefore, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± violated Rule 9 of the COLREGs.


Fuzhou MSA ascertained that: M/V ?°Nissho 1?± turned around in an improper timing and failed to comply with the regulations on navigation in narrow channels, which was the main cause of this collision accident; M/V ?°Hui Yang?± failed to apply good seamanship, take proper avoiding measures and to take due regard to make a departure from the Rules under a close-quarters situation, which was the indirect cause of this collision accident. Therefore, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± shall take major responsibility and M/V ?°Hui Yang?± shall take secondary responsibility with regard to this collision accident.


vi.	Facts concerning the Loss Sustained by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


The Plaintiff entrusted Asai & Ichikawa Average Adjusters (hereinafter referred to as ?°Asai & Ichikawa?±) to carry out the adjustment with regard to the losses sustained by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± due to this collision accident. According to the evidential materials provided by the Plaintiff, Asai & Ichikawa Average Adjusters issued a Claim Report. Pursuant to the Claim Report, the losses sustained by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± due to this collision accident were in the amount of USD1,482,925.53. The evidential materials supporting the losses sustained by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as provided by the Chinese lawyers of the Plaintiff were attached to the aforesaid Claim Report. The said Claim Report was notarized and certified. The Defendant raised objection to the Claim Report, contending that some of the evidential materials attached thereto were generated in China and as a result the Japanese notary public had no way and no power to certify the authenticity of these evidential materials. The Collegial Panel holds that: the adjustment carried out by Asai & Ichikawa Average Adjusters with regard to the losses sustained by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± due to this collision accident was based on the evidential materials provided by the Chinese lawyers of the Plaintiff which are not necessarily adopted by this Court, and therefore the adjustment result specified in the Claim Report is not necessarily taken as the ground for the Plaintiff to claim compensation; instead, it is admissible only after being ascertained by this Court through court hearing. 


1.	Salvage Fees paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


On the day of the accident, Fuzhou Marine Search and Rescue Center organized M/V ?°Hu Jiu 1?± of Fuzhou Salvage Station of Shanghai Salvage Co. under the Ministry of Transportation (hereinafter refrred to as ?°Fuzhou Station?±) to carry out salvage on the vessels involved in the accident. The Plaintiff provided the Completion Form of M/V ?°Hu Jiu 1?± and the original invoice of the salvage fees, proving that M/V ?°Nissho 1?± had paid the salvage fees in the amount of RMB18,000 incurred on 3 April 2002. The Defendant had no objection to the aforesaid facts. 


The Court ascertains the Plaintiff??s payment of salvage fees in the amount of RMB18,000 since the Defendant confirmed and admitted the aforesaid evidence provided by the Plaintiff.


2.	Costs of Underwater Diving Survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


On 23 December 2001, Nissho, namely the ship??s manager of the Plaintiff, entrusted Shanghai Salvage Co., to carry out an underwater diving survey to investigate damages to the hull of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and the conditions of her grounding. Shanghai Salvage Co., Xiamen Station issued a Survey Report, specifying as follows: 1.	Large-area breakage was found in way of Fr. No.52 to No.60 of the starboard side of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. The widest part of the breakage on the main deck was located in way of Fr. No.52 and No.60, with the overall length of 5meters. At about 1000hrs on 23 December 2001, the breakage located in the water line at 4.5meters was about 2.14meters, and about 1.25meters at 3meters, below which, other breakages were covered by the bitumen condensate leaking out from the cargo hold, with the size of about 8-10 cubic meters; 2. Bitumen was found consistently leaking out from the breakage, and the bitumen condensate covered around the breakage; 3. The breakage on fore was torn steel plate with sharp edges scrolling outwards, and the breakage on aft was torn steel plate pushed inwards at angles forming lots of creasing. The angle protruded outwards with the length of about 3-5meters, which made it unsuitable for plugging up the breakage from the outside of the cargo hold; 4. The divers investigated the propeller, rudder and tail shaft and found there were some fishing net and rope twining in the shield of the tail shaft. Apart from the aforesaid conditions, nothing abnormal was observed at that time. The hull bottom was about 2.5 meters away from the bottom of the sea; 5. The sea bottom on the starboard side of the hull bottom was hard sand, and on the port side thereof, besides hard sand, piles of irregular stones were found time after time and extended to the hull bottom; 6. As per the investigation on the conditions of grounding on 23 December, fore and aft abeam, transversing flows including rising tide transversing the starboard side and falling tide transversing the port side; 7. At high water time on 23, another investigation was carried out and found the position of the vessel grounded shifted. The sea bottom on the port side of the hull bottom was still hard sand. The broken stones originally found at low water time were gone. The hull bottom located 7meters in front of the navigation bridge separated from the sea bottom.


Nissho paid the costs of underwater diving survey in the amount of USD6,000 via the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., to the beneficiary designed by Shanghai Salvage Co., namely Shen Hua Shipping Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ?°Shen Hua?±). Shanghai Salvage Co., issued an invoice to Nissho as regards such costs.


In order to prove the aforesaid facts, the Plaintiff provided the copies of the Survey Report, invoices as well as payment vouchers. The Defendant denied the copies provided by the Plaintiff at the time of evidence discovery on the ground that without the originals, such evidence could not be verified. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: according to the logbooks of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to which both parties had no objection, some divers arrived at M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at 0925hrs on 23 December 2001 and started to carry out diving survey on the underwater damaged hull of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; Although the evidence supporting the aforesaid facts as provided by the Plaintiff was the copies of the originals, the facts so proved by these evidential materials were identical with those specified in the aforesaid logbooks. Therefore, the Court ascertains the costs of underwater diving survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as claimed by the Plaintiff in the amount of USD6, 000. 


3.	Cost of Patching to the Underwater Hull Plate of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


On 27 December 2001, Nissho and Shanghai Salvage Co., entered into an Agreement on Temporary Patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, agreeing that Shanghai Salvage Co., would carry out temporary patching of the underwater breakage of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± caused by the ship collision, to the extent that one water pump was sufficient to control water ingress occurred in the cargo hold so that M/V ?°Nissho 1?± could unload the goods and proceed to the dockyard for repair. The lump sum amount in respect of temporary patching was USD120,000, of which, 60% should be paid upon the execution of the Agreement, and the remaining 40% should be paid within 2 days after the completion of temporary patching. Shanghai Salvage Co., issued to Nissho on 27 December 2001 and 11 January 2002 respectively the invoices of the temporary patching costs in the amount of USD72,000 and USD48,000. On 10 January 2002, the representative of Shanghai Salvage Co. concluded a Certificate of Completion of Temporary Patching with the master of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. 


Nissho paid via the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., to Shen Hua the temporary patching costs in the amount of USD72,000 and USD48, 000 which amounted to USD 120,000 on 28 December 2001 and 15 January 2002 respectively. 


In order to prove the aforesaid facts, the Plaintiff provided the copies of the Agreement on Temporary Patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and the Certificate of Completion of Temporary Patching, invoices and payment vouchers thereof. The Defendant denied the copies provided by the Plaintiff at the time of evidence discovery on the ground that without the originals, such evidence could not be verified.


The Collegial Panel holds that: according to the logbooks of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, some divers arrived at M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at 1604hrs on 28 December 2001 and started to carry out diving survey on the underwater damaged hull of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; Although the evidence supporting the aforesaid facts as provided by the Plaintiff was the copies of the originals, the facts so proved by these evidential materials were identical with those specified in the aforesaid logbooks. Therefore, the Court ascertains the costs of patching to the underwater hull plate of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as claimed by the Plaintiff in the amount of USD120, 000. 


4.	Agency Fees for Arranging the Temporary Patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


The Plaintiff provided the invoices and payment vouchers issued by Oldendorff Shanghai Office, proving that Nissho paid to Oldendorff Shanghai Office the agency fees in the amount of USD6,000 for the underwater temporary patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± carried out in Fuzhou from 31 December 2001 and 12 January 2002. The Plaintiff contended that as a foreign party, the Plaintiff was unfamiliar with the place where the accident took place, and therefore entrusted Oldendorff Shanghai Office that was rather familiar with the ship repairing market in Fu Jian Province and the East China region to arrange the repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. The Defendant put forward when examining evidence that the Plaintiff actually entrusted a foreign company as the agent rather than a Chinese shipping agency. 


The Collegial Panel holds that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff, as a foreign party, to entrust another party acting as an agent to arrange ship repairing yard for carrying out the temporary patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as soon as possible. Therefore, the agency fees incurred therefrom are reasonable and shall be ascertained. 


5.	Costs of Temporary Patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Mawei shipyard


On 9 January 2002, Nissho concluded with Mawei Shipyard an Agreement on Temporary Patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, agreeing that Mawei Shipyard was responsible for repairing the damaged frame of the hull plate and the damaged deck plate; the lump sum amount of repair was USD47,5000, and the repair period was 15 days. On 11 January, Nissho paid the aforesaid amount via the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd. On 19 January, Mawei Shipyard issued an invoice specifying the detailed information of repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as well as the repair costs in the amount of USD47,5000. On the same day, Mawei Shipyard issued to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± a Completion Report in respect of the repair. The Master of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± signed and confirmed the Completion Report. On 15 and 18 January, Mawei Shipyard issued a receipt of the repair costs respectively in the amount of USD24,000 and USD23, 5000. The Defendant raised objection to the aforesaid facts. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the aforesaid loss claimed by the Plaintiff is relevant to this collision accident. The Defendant raised objection to the aforesaid facts, but failed to give sufficient reasons and to provide rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the Court ascertains the costs of the temporary patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in sum of USD47,500 sustained by the Plaintiff. 


6.	Costs of Cleaning up Cargo Hold No.3 and No.5 and Cutting off the Damaged Steel Plate of Cargo Hold No. 5 of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± carried out by Mawei Shipyard


On 26 January 2002, Nissho concluded with Mawei Shipyard another contract, agreeing that Mawei Shipyard was responsible for cleaning up cargo hold No. 3 and No.5 and cutting off the damaged steel plate of cargo hold No. 5 of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±; the lump sum amount was USD67,500, of which, 50% should be paid at the time of commencement of the repair, and the remaining 50% be paid upon completion of the repair; the repair period was 5 working days after the goods were discharged from M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. On 28 January 2002, Nissho paid through the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd. the repair costs in sum of USD68,000 as agreed. On 31 January, Mawei Shipyard issued to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± a Completion Form which was confirmed and signed by the master of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. On the same day, Mawei Shipyard issued an invoice specifying the costs incurred by the aforesaid repair project in sum of USD67,500, and also issued a receipt of such costs. The Defendant raised objection to the aforesaid facts. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the aforesaid loss claimed by the Plaintiff is relevant to this collision accident. The Defendant raised objection to the aforesaid facts, but failed to give sufficient reasons and to provide rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the Court ascertains the costs arising from the aforesaid repair project in the amount of USD67,500 sustained by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±.


7.	Management and Service Fees Charged by Leelloyds Marine Engineering Pte., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ?°Leelloyds?±)


On 5 February, Leelloyds issued three invoices to Nissho.

 

The first invoice specified the fees arising from Leellyods?? dispatching of a team composed of one engineer, one managing personnel and one technical personnel to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± from 29 December 2001 to 19 January 2002 when M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was berthing at Mawei port, to coordinate and manage the salvage operation and temporary patching of the vessel, in the amount of SGD49,706.34. 


The second invoice specified the technical personnel service fees and personal insurance premium arising from Leellyods?? dispatching of one engineer to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± from 20 January to 1 Febuary 2002 when M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was berthing at Mawei port, to coordinate and manage the miscellaneous works carried out in the cargo hold No.3 and No.5, in the amount of SGD 9,224.25. 


The third invoice specified fees arising from Leellyods?? 24hour-continuous work so as to obtain a hot work permit for an emergency and Leellyods?? arranging of local workers, together with necessary tools, consumable materials, personal belongings and instruments etc., to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± from 11 January to 13 January 2002 when M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was berthing at Mawei port, for the purpose of cleaning up the specified place in the starboard cargo hold No.5 as well as the cargo hold No.3, in the amount of SGD15,020. 


The total amount of the aforesaid invoices was SGD73,905.59. On 28 March 2002, Nissho paid SGD 73,905.59 to Leellyods via the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd. The Defendant challenged the aforesaid fees and the payment thereof. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the aforesaid fees were resulted from salvage operations and temporary patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, and shall be ascertained. 


8.	Purchase Fees of Patching Materials for M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


On 27 February 2002, Mashin Shokai Limited issued an invoice specifying that the Plaintiff purchased the Belzona Molecular at the price of USD2,595, of which, material cost was in the amount of USD2,415, and transportation fees was in the amount of USD180. The Plaintiff claimed that such special materials had good mechanical strength and chemical stability and were used to patch the breakage of the cargo hold of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. The said fees were incurred on 25 March 2002. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff should adduce relevant evidence to prove the necessity of such fees in respect of patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±.


The Collegial Panel holds that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to carry out the patching operation towards the breakage of the cargo holds of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± caused by the collision accident, and the fees incurred therefrom shall be ascertained. 


9.	Hire of Floating Crane used for Repair Works of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


The Plaintiff provided a copy of the invoice dated 17 January 2002 issued by the mechanical and electrical installation team of Cangshan, Fuzhou City, specifying the hire of a floating crane used for repair works was in the amount of RMB56,000. The Plaintiff claimed that such cost was resulted from the floating crane used to carry out the temporary repair. The Defendant contended that the aforesaid evidence could not be verified without the originals, and therefore shall not be ascertained. 


The Collegial Panel holds that without the originals, the aforesaid evidence can not be verified, and therefore shall not be ascertained. 


10.	Classification Survey Fees paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


On 31 January 202, Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (hereinafter referred to as ?°NKK?±) issued to the Plaintiff an invoice in respect of the classification survey fees. According to this invoice, on 18 January, NKK completed the survey on damages to the hull of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Fuzhou port, Fujian, China, and the classification survey fees incurred therefrom was in the amount of USD1,147 and was paid on 31 January 2002. The Defendant contented that NKK was not qualified to carry out ship??s survey in China, and thus the fees incurred therefrom were illegal and shall not be ascertained. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the ship??s classification indicates the technical conditions of the ship, evidencing her capability of undertaking a safe navigation. After the collision between M/V ?°Nissho1?± and M/V ?°Hui Yang?±, NKK carried out a classification survey on M/V ?°Nissho 1?± so as to examine whether the vessel, M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, approved by NKK was capable of safe navigation. Such classification survey complies with the shipping practice. Therefore, the fees resulted from the classification survey is reasonable, and shall be ascertained. 


11.	Costs of Shifting and Pilotage for Refloating M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


On 14 January 2002, Fuzhou port authority issued an invoice in respect of the costs of shifting and pilotage in the amount of RMB4,806. The said costs were paid on 14 January 2002. Pursuant to the two Pilotage Cards attached to the invoice, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± carried out refloating and shifting operations on 27 December 2001. The Defendant contended that: according to the logbooks of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± dated 27 December, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± grounded after dropping her anchor due to fast tide flow and negligence of the master; the aforesaid costs were resulted from M/V ?°Nissho 1?±??s grounding but not resulted from the collision accident; such costs belonged to a loss aggravated as a result of the grounding; therefore, such costs shall not be ascertained. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: according to the logbook of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± dated 21 December, after the collision, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± grounded at 1520hrs; according to the logbook dated 27 December, at 1240hrs M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was dragging her anchor, and at 1243hrs the vessel grounded at the position of 26??08??24??N, 119??36'95"E. After the collision accident and before 27 December, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± did not carry out any refloating operation. Therefore, the aforesaid costs were actually caused by the collision accident but not the negligence of the master, and shall be ascertained.


12.	Hire of Tugs for Salvage of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


On 1 March 2002, Fuzhou port authority issued 6 invoices for the payment dated 1 March 2002 of tug hire made by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of RMB389,376. According to the 27 Notices on the Charging Standard and Time for Tug Hire in Fuzhou Port as well as 26 Operation Sheet of Tug Service, Fuzhou port authority arranged tugs to salve, safeguard, escort and assist M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in her departure from Mawei port at Minjiangkou. The Defendant contended that the aforesaid costs were resulted from using tugs to avoid dragging and there was no inevitable causal link between the said costs and the collision accident, and thus shall not be ascertained. The Plaintiff claimed that M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was under a rather dangerous situation after collision, and the loss might be aggravated without salvage and safeguard by tugs. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: after the collision accident, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± suffered severe damages to her hull; if bitumen carried onboard M/V ?°Nissho 1?± leaked out from the vessel into the sea, it would contaminate the sea; it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to hire tugs to salve, safeguard, escort and assist M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in her departure from Mawei port, in order to avoid aggravation of losses; therefore, the costs incurred therefrom shall be ascertained. 


13.	Costs arising from Deployment of Oil Fences paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


On 21 December 2001, after the collision accident, oil fences were deployed around M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, in order to prevent pollution and to avoid aggravation of loss. The costs incurred therefrom were RMB48,000 in total, of which, RMB45,000 was paid on 30 January 2002, and the remaining RMB3,000 was paid on 4 February 2002. The Plaintiff provided the operation form and the invoice of the aforesaid costs. The Defendant had no objection to the aforesaid facts. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the parties concerned had no objection to the aforesaid costs, and therefore such costs shall be ascertained. 


14.	Hire of Small Barge for Collecting Bitumen


The Plaintiff claimed that after the collision, Fuzhou MSA dispatched small barges to stay around M/V ?°Nissho 1?± for collecting the spilled bitumen. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± paid RMB9,450 for hiring those small barges on 18 January 2002. The Plaintiff provided two receipts in support of the said payment. The Defendant contended that there was no evidence in support of the fact that the aforesaid costs were incurred due to requirement of Fuzhou MSA, and therefore the said costs shall not be ascertained.


The Collegial Panel holds that: After the collision, the bitumen loaded onboard M/V ?°Nissho 1?± spilled; it is reasonable for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to hire barges to collect the spilled bitumen so as to avoid and minimize the environmental pollution, and the costs incurred therefrom shall be ascertained. Although the Plaintiff only provided the payment receipts as evidence, such evidence does not affect the fact that the Plaintiff had paid the hire for those small barges. Therefore, the hire of the small barges in the amount of RMB9,450 as claimed by the Plaintiff shall be ascertained. 


15.	Fees of Environmental Monitoring and Appraisal paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


The Plaintiff claimed that after the collision, upon requested by the competent authority, it performed appraisal and environmental monitoring for the bitumen loaded on board, and paid on 4 January 2002 the Environmental Monitoring fee in the sum of RMB460 and the appraisal fee in the sum of RMB1,660, which amounted to RMB2,120. The Plaintiff provided two documents in support of the aforesaid fees. The Defendant had no objection to the aforesaid facts. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the parties concerned had no objection to the aforesaid costs, and therefore such costs shall be ascertained. 


16.	Vehicle Hire paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to China Ocean Shipping Agency (Fuzhou) (Hereinafter referred to as ?°Penavico Fuzhou?±)


The Plaintiff claimed that after the collision, it hired some vehicles from Penavico Fuzhou in order to deal with the accident, and paid the hire in the sum of RMB14,100. The Plaintiff provided the copies of 48 lists of hired vehicles as evidence. The Defendant contended that the evidential materials in support of the aforesaid facts were all copies, instead of the invoices of the vehicle hire, and refused to recognize such vehicle hire. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: the evidential documents of the aforesaid vehicle hire are copies, and cannot be verified without the originals; the Plaintiff failed to provide the payment vouchers and the invoices thereof; therefore, the aforesaid vehicle hire shall not be ascertained.


17.	Costs of Air Tickets for the Owner??s Superintendent


The Plaintiff claimed that after the collision, it dispatched Mr. KITAZAWA from Japan to Fuzhou, China via Shanghai by plane on 1 February 2002. The air tickets cost RMB2,821. The Plaintiff provided the copies of the air tickets as well as the special invoice for international airline for passenger??s transportation. The Defendant contented that M/V ?°Nissho 1?± accepted repair in Japan at the beginning of 2002 and therefore the aforesaid costs were irrelevant to this case and shall not be ascertained. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence in support of the connection between the said costs and this case, and therefore the said costs shall not be ascertained. 


18.	Costs of Hotel Accommodation paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± for Dealing with the Collision Accident


The Plaintiff claimed that in order to deal with the collision accident, it had paid the hotel accommodation fees in the sum of RMB1,512.60 for the relevant personnel respectively on 26 and 30 December 2001. It also provided two invoices and two breakdowns of the hotel guests?? consumption at Fuzhou Golden Resources International Hotel as evidence. The Defendant did not raise any objection to the aforesaid costs. This Court ascertained such cost over which there was no dispute between the parties. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the parties concerned had no objection to the aforesaid costs, and therefore such costs shall be ascertained. 


19.	Communication Charges paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± for Dealing with the Collision Accident


The Plaintiff claimed that it had paid the communication charges in the sum of RMB2,637.34 including, postage charges, telephone fee, and the cost of using the HF of the MSA as well as the cost of purchasing pre-paid phone card, etc. for dealing with this accident. The Defendant contended that the evidence provide by the Plaintiff in support of the aforesaid expenses were copies and thus refused to recognize the expenses.


The Collegial Panel holds that: the evidential materials in support of the aforesaid costs are copies which cannot be verified without the originals and there is no any other evidence to support such expenses. Therefore, the aforesaid expenses shall not be ascertained.


20.	Agency Fees paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to Penavico Fuzhou 


The Plaintiff claimed that it had paid the agency fees in the sum of RMB5,000 to Penavico Fuzhou for dealing with this collision accident. The said payment was made on 22 February 2002. The Defendant did not raise any objection to such agency fees. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the parties concerned had no objection to the aforesaid agency fees, and therefore such fees shall be ascertained. 


21.	Costs of the Operation of Technical Personnel and Fire Engine Fees paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to Fuzhou Port Mawei Group Co., Ltd.


The Plaintiff claimed that it had paid RMB2,116 to Fuzhou Port Mawei Group Co., Ltd. for fire prevention at the time of discharging the goods, including the costs of operation of technical personnel in the sum of RMB1,316 and the costs of fire engine in the sum of RMB800. The Plaintiff also provided the invoice thereof. The Defendant contended that normal discharge operation did not require for fire engine, and such costs were reasonable and shall not be ascertained. 


The Collegial Panel holds that the aforesaid costs were resulted from the normal cargo discharging, which are irrelevant to the collision accident, and thus shall not be ascertained.


22.	Costs incurred at Hong Kong for Assisting Owner??s Superintendent, Mr. Kitazawa, paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to Patt Manfield & Co., Ltd.


The Plaintiff claimed that Nissho entrusted Patt Manfield & Co., Ltd. to assist owner??s superintendent, Mr. Kitazawa, in transferring at Hong Kong. The costs of transportation, communications, accommodation and Chinese visa were in the amount of HKD5,362, equivalent to USD687.44. The said costs were paid on 23 December 2001. The Plaintiff provided the following evidence: the inventories, bills as well as advice of payment for expenses incurred from 22 to 23 December 2001 issued by Patt Manfield & Co., Ltd. to Nissho; Letters sent by Loylaty Travel Service Co., Ltd. notifying Patt Manfield & Co., Ltd. to pay the air tacket for Mr. Kitazawa for the flight on 22 December 2001 from Shenzhen to Fuzhou in the sum of HKD980; Three long-distance bus tickets between Kowloon, Hong Kong and Shenzhen which cost HKD549; Receipt of visa charges in the sum of HKD250; Receipt of cost of battery charger in the sum of RMB50 and telephon rate in the sum of RMB33; Copies of threee pre-paid phone cards in the amount of HKD320. The Defendant refused to recognize the aforesaid costs by reason that the said costs were irrelevant to this case. 


The Collegial Panel holds that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff, as a foreign company, to dispatch managing personnel to the place of accident for dealing with the collision accident, and the costs of transportation, communication, accommodation as well as visa, etc. incurred therefrom shall be supported. Therefore, the aforesaid costs claimed by the Plaintiff shall be ascertained.


23.	Costs resulted from Removal of Underwater Bitumen paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


After the collision, part of the bitumen carried onboard M/V ?°Nissho 1?± spilled and was deposited in the waters where the collision accident took place. In order to remove the underwater bitumen, Penavico Fuzhou concluded, on behalf of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, the Contract for Removal of Underwater Bitumen with Fuzhou Station on 7 February 2002, agreeing that: Penavico Fuzhou appointed Fuzhou Station to organize a diving operation team to conduct underwater search and removal of the spilled bitumen; Upon the completion of the salvage, regardless of whether the spilled bitumen was found or not, whether the quantum of the spilled bitumen was consistent with the short-landed quantity, Fuzhou Station shall submit to Penavico Fuzhou and Fuzhou MSA the written completion report in accordance with the relevant regulations attached with a drawing for detailed illustration; meanwhile, Fuzhou Station shall guarantee to obtain the recognition of Fuzhou MSA regarding the salvage and a certificate of acceptance inspection; the total charges for contracting the project were RMB350,000. Upon conclusion of this Contract, Fuzhou Station carried out underwater search and removal of the spilled bitumen on 18 February 2002. On 25 February, Fuzhou Station issued a completion report attached with a drawing for detailed illustration. On 12 April, Fuzhou MSA, Penavico Fuzhou and Fuzhou Station concluded the Acceptance Report for Project of Underwater Search and Removal of the Bitumen Spilled out of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. The Acceptance Report came to conclusion that: the diving operation team of Fuzhou Station completed the underwater search and removal of the bitumen spilled out of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± within the specified period at the designated waters in accordance with the aforesaid Contract for Removal of Underwater Bitumen concluded with Penavico Fuzhou. However, there was still some bitumen which could not be found and removed. Therefore, it was determined as follows after discussion: 1. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the international conventions, Fuzhou MSA reserves the right to claim for recovery and compensation against the owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± within 3 years after the collision accident with respect to pollution in the waters other than the accident waters as caused by the cargos; 2. In case of any bitumen found in the waters searched by the diving operation team of Fuzhou Station, the diving operation team of Fuzhou Station was responsible for removing the bitumen. On 20 April, Fuzhou Station issued an invoice to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of RMB357,100, including the service charges in the sum of RMB199,990, costs of necessary equipment and machinery respectively in the sum of RMB127,000 and RMB31,100. The Plaintiff alleged that the said costs were incurred on 26 April 2002. The Plaintiff confirmed that Penavico Fuzhou concluded on behalf of the Plaintiff the Contract for Removal of Underwater Bitumen with Fuzhou Station. However, the Plaintiff did not provide the relevant payment vouchers. 


The Defendant contended that the invoice issued by Fuzhou Station to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was not the actual payment invoice, and there was no evidence in support of the fact that the owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± had entrusted Penavico Fuzhou to conclude the Contract for Removal of Underwater Bitumen; therefore the aforesaid costs shall not be ascertained. 


The Collegial Panel holds that:	after the collision, part of the bitumen carried onboard M/V ?°Nissho 1?± spilled into the waters; in order to reduce the pollution caused by the spilled bitumen, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± carried out, under the organization of the competent authority, search and removal of the underwater bitumen at the accident waters, which is reasonable; thus, the costs incurred therefrom shall be ascertained. In consideration that Penavico Fuzhou had disclosed to Fuzhou Station its acting as agent of the owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at the time of concluding the Contract for Removal of Underwater Bitumen, and that the Plaintiff confirmed Penavico Fuzhou acted as the agent of the Owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, it shall be ascertained that an agency relationship existed between Penavico Fuzhou and the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff shall assume the civil liabilities arising from the acts of Penavico Fuzhou as the agent of the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff neither provided any evidence in support of the aforesaid costs, nor adduced any evidence indicating the reasons why the total costs for contracting the project actually incurred were more than those specified in the Contract, therefore the Court ascertains the total costs for contracting the project was in the amount of RMB350,000 as specified in the Contract for Removal of Underwater Bitumen. The Plaintiff claimed that such costs were incurred on 26 April 2006, namely the date after the invoice date issued by Fuzhou Station. Therefore, such costs shall be ascertained.  


24.	Costs of Supervision and Safeguard on M/V ?°Nissho 1?±at the Accident Scene


After the collision, Fuzhou MSA dispatched patrol vessels to the accident scene to deal with the accident from 21 December 2001 to 20 January 2002, and charged M/V ?°Nissho 1?± RMB107,200 for such supervision and safeguard, which was paid by Penavico Fuzhou to Fuzhou MSA on 1 April 2002. In order to support the aforesaid facts, the Plaintiff provided 2 originals of the receipts of charges for supervision and control of port service and 2 copies of the certificates of hire of patrol vessels as well as 1 original Statement of Costs Incurred by Using Patrol Vessels due to Grounding of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. 


The Defendant raised an objection to the aforesaid facts, contending that those costs might overlap with each other, and the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support its payment to Penavico Fuzhou. Thus the Defendant refused to recognize the aforesaid costs. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: according to the relevant facts, Penavico Fuzhou, after the collision accident, was entrusted by the owner to act as the ship agent of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to participate in dealing with this collision accident. Therefore, it shall be ascertained that the aforesaid costs of supervision and safeguard on M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at the accident scene was paid by Penavico Fuzhou on behalf of the owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to Fuzhou MSA. The said costs were resulted from handling the collision accident. Therefore such costs are reasonable and shall be ascertained. 


25.	Travel Expenses of the Representative of the Owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± arising in Fuzhou


From 26 to 29 December 2001, Nissho sent its general manager of the maritime and technical department, i.e. Mr. Shigeru Yoshida, from Narita, Japan to Fuzhou, China to supervise and manage the repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. The travel expenses arising therefrom were in the sum of JPY749,566, including the accommodation fees in the sum of RMB1682 for accommodation in Shanghai Pudong New Asia Limited Intercontinental Hotel on 26 and 27 December 2001. The said travel expenses were paid on 29 January 2002. The Plaintiff provided the receipts and payment vouchers of the accommodation fees, the internal requisition of travel expenses of Nissho, and the bills issued by Nissho to the Plaintiff. 


The Defendant contended that the evidential materials in support of the aforesaid facts were the internal documents between the Plaintiff and Nissho, and it was difficult to ascertain whether it did actual happen. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: it is reasonable for Nissho, as the ship??s manager of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, to send a technician to the accident scene to supervise the temporary repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as required by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± due to the collision accident, and thus the expenses arising therefrom are also reasonable; in addition, the Defendant failed to present any good reasons or any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the travel expenses in the amount of JPY749,566 shall be ascertained. 



26.	Travel Expenses and Superintendence Fees of the Representative of the Owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± incurred at Ehime, Japan


According to the Ship Management Agreement entered into by and between Nissho and the Plaintiff, Nissho sent the General Manager of the maritime and technical department, i.e. Mr. Shigeru Yoshida, to Murakami Hide for supervising the repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± during the period from 4 February to 22 February 2002. The total costs arising therefrom were in the amount of JPY373,400, including the travel expenses in the sum of JPY55,160, and the superintendence fees in the sum of JPY318,240. The Plaintiff claimed that the said costs were paid on 24 February 2002. The Plaintiff provided the debit note issued by Nissho in respect of the aforesaid costs.


The Defendant contended that the evidential materials provided by the Plaintiff in support of the aforesaid facts were the internal documents between the Plaintiff and Nissho, and therefore it was difficult to ascertain the facts only based on such evidence. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: it is reasonable for Nissho, as the ship??s manager of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, to send a technician to the accident scene to supervise the permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as required by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± due to the collision accident, and thus the expenses and fees arising therefrom are also reasonable; in addition, the Defendant failed to present any good reasons or any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the said travel expenses and superintendence fees shall be ascertained. 


27.	Superintendence Fees of the Representative of the Owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± incurred at Ehime, Japan


According to the Ship Management Agreement entered into by and between Nissho and the Plaintiff, Nissho sent the ship??s repair superintendents, i.e. Mr. Susaki and Mr. K. Mantoku, to Hakata Sima (namely the location of Murakami Hide) for supervising the permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± during the period from 4 February to 22 February 2002. The total costs arising therefrom were in the amount of JPY1,923,890, including the travel expenses in the sum of JPY14,450, and the daily wages in the sum of JPY1,909,440. The Plaintiff claimed that the said costs were paid on 25 February 2002. The Plaintiff provided the internal requisition of travel expenses of Nissho, and the debit note issued by Nissho in respect of the aforesaid fees.


The Defendant contended that the evidential materials provided by the Plaintiff in support of the aforesaid facts were not payment vouchers evidencing Plaintiff??s payment and it was difficult to ascertain the facts only based on such evidence. Therefore, the Defendant refused to admit such fees. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: it is reasonable for Nissho, as the ship??s manager of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, to send a technician to the accident scene to supervise the permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as required by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± due to the collision accident, and thus the expenses and fees arising therefrom are also reasonable; in addition, the Defendant failed to present any good reasons or any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the said superintendence fees shall be ascertained. 


28.	Survey Fee sustained by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Japan


When M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was accepting permanent repair at Murakami Hide between 4 and 22 February 2002, the relevant Japanese inspection company carried out survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. On 4, 5 and 14 February, NKK Onomichi Branch carried out surveys for the hull, which incurred fee and expenses in the amount of JPY464, 362; On 14 February, NKK Onomichi Branch carried out a special survey for the vessel which incurred fee and expenses in the amount of JPY3666, 500; On 22 February, NKK Jpima Imabari Office carried out an occasional survey which incurred fee and expenses in the amount of JPY106, 000. The aforesaid surveys totally incurred JPY979, 166. The Plaintiff provided the invoice of the aforesaid fee and expenses. 


The Defendant alleged that the aforesaid survey should have been carried out in the place where the accident took place. Or otherwise, none of them should be deemed as reasonable and ascertained.


The collegial panel holds as follows: Where a vessel is partially damaged due to any ship collision, the loss thereof shall include the reasonable auxiliary expenses incurred for supporting the permanent repair. However, in accordance with Article 16 of the Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court on Determination of Property Damage Compensation in the Trial of Cases of Ship Collision and Contact, ?°auxiliary expenses?± refers to the reasonable costs incurred by ship??s repair including the survey fee. It is reasonable to carry out survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± before and after the permanent repair. Therefore the aforesaid survey fee in the amount of JPY979, 166 should be ascertained. 


29.	Cost of Permanent Repair for M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


With regard to the cost of permanent repair for M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, both parties have respectively provided three sets of evidential materials. Such evidential materials are ascertained as follows:


(1)	The Survey Report issued by Guang Dong Maritime Engineering Consulting & Survey Co., Ltd. provide by Sun Font


On 18 January 2002, Guang Dong Maritime Engineering Consulting & Survey Co., Ltd. as entrusted by PICC Guangdong carried out a survey of the damage to M/V ?°Nissho 1?± caused by the collision accident and issued on 5 February an English Survey Report. The Defendant neither provided the Chinese version of that Survey Report as required by the relevant laws and regulations, nor invited the surveyor to appear in court accepting interrogations. The Plaintiff alleged that the repair cost incurred by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as estimated by the aforesaid Survey Report are unreasonable and refused to recognize the same on the grounds that the relevant surveyor failed to appear in court accepting interrogations, and the scope of repair was determined based on the surveyor??s discretion instead of the repair requirements provided by the classification surveyor. 


The collegial panel holds as follows: The aforesaid Survey Report is an expert conclusion. In accordance with provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of Some Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures, the authenticators shall appear in court to accept the interrogations of the parties concerned. Furthermore, pursuant to provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People??s Republic of China, if a document in a foreign language is submitted as evidence, a Chinese translation must be appended. The surveyor issuing the aforesaid Survey Report did not appear in court accepting interrogations, and the Defendant failed to provide the Chinese translation of the Survey Report, which are against the aforesaid provisions of law. Therefore, the aforesaid Survey Report shall not be adopted. 


(2)	The Evaluation Report for Repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± issued by Teamhead Surveyors Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to ?°Teamhead?±) provided by the Plaintiff. 


Teamhead was entrusted by Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm on behalf of the owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to evaluate the time and cost of repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in China. It issued on 25 August 2003 the Evaluation Report for Repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. According to such report, the reasonable time and cost of permanent repair in China are estimated as 20 to 25 days and USD 417,297 referring to the Survey Report issued by NKK, the List of Repair of Murakami Hide where the items to be repaired are specified, and the Price List of Ship Repair (1996) issued by China State Shipbuilding Corporation. However, in consideration of the time spent for deviation from Fuzhou to Shanghai and for waiting for tide and entry of dock as well as the Spring Festival which lead to the extension of repair, the time required by permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± would be 31 to 39 days. 


The Collegial Panel holds that: Teamhead was qualified to evaluate the cost of repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. It issued the Evaluation Report by reference to the Survey Report issued by NKK, the scope of repair and the Price List of Ship Repair (1996) issued by China State Shipbuilding Corporation, and made clear and detailed calculation and confirmation of the repair items and unit price and total amount thereof based on sufficient grounds. The surveyor from Teamhead, Mr. Fang Weiguo, appeared in court and accepted interrogations of the parties concerned. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide any evidence conclusive enough to repudiate the Evaluation Report on any reasonable grounds. Therefore, the Evaluation Report issued by Teamhead can be adopted. 


(3)	Statement of Repair Cost of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± issued by Murakami Hide and the Survey Report issued by NKK provide by the Plaintiff


On 31 January 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± departed from Mawei Dockyard where she accepted the repair heading for Japan. On 4 February, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± arrived at Murakami Hide in Ehime Pref., Japan and entered into the dry dock accepting permanent repair which was accomplished on 22 February. According to the Statement of Repair Cost of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± issued by Murakami Hide, the costs of permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± are in the amount of JPY72, 400, 000, which should be settled on 6 April 2002. On 5 June, NKK issued a Survey Report indicating that the marine surveyors of NKK, at the request of Nissan Fire And Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. as hull underwriter of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, attended on 4 February 2002 and the subsequent dates aboard in order to ascertain the nature and extent of damage to her starboard hull alleged to have sustained due to the collision with M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. It is specified in the Time Sheet of the Collision Accident of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± under the aforesaid Survey Report that NKK carried out a survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Mawei port, Fuzhou on 18 January 2002. NKK stated in the aforesaid Survey Report that it is reasonable for Murakami Hide to undertake repair from 4 to 22 February, and that the total cost of permanent repair in the amount of JPY72, 400, 000 which should be settled among the owner, repairer and hull underwriter of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±?? is fair and reasonable. 


The Defendant refuses to recognize the aforesaid evidence on the grounds that: I. The Plaintiff??s undertaking of permanent repair for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Japan violates the law of the PRC on repairing the vessel in the nearest place available. II. After the collision accident, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± grounded. Thus the repair includes both the damage caused by collision and her grounding. However, the cost of repair for damage caused by the vessel??s grounding has no connection with the collision accident. The aforesaid repair cost which includes the repair cost for damage caused by grounding is unreasonable. III. The collision accident took place at Minjiang Kou, Fuzhou on 21 December 2001, but NKK carried out survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Japan and attend aboard on 4 February 2002. Apparently, NKK did not carry out relevant survey immediately after the collision accident so that the survey could not reflect the actual damage caused by the collision. IV. NKK does not have the qualification to carry out ship survey in China. Therefore, the damage survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is against relevant regulations of the PRC. 


The Plaintiff refuses to recognize the aforesaid evidence on the grounds that: I. The  violates the law of the PRC on repairing the vessel in the nearest place available by undertaking permanent repair for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Japan. II. After the collision accident, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± grounded. Thus the repair includes both the damage caused by collision and her grounding. However, there is no causal connection between the repair cost for damage caused by grounding and the collision accident. The aforesaid repair cost which includes the repair cost for damage caused by grounding is not reasonable. III. The collision accident took place at Minjiang Kou, Fuzhou on 21 December 2001. Nevertheless, NKK carried out survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Japan and attend aboard on 4 February 2002. Apparently, NKK did not carry out relevant survey immediately after the collision accident, thus the survey could not reflect the actual damage caused by the collision. IV. NKK does not have the qualification to carry out ship survey in China. Therefore, the damage survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is against relevant regulations of the PRC. 


The Plaintiff alleged during the evidence examination that the permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± carried out in Murakami Hide is reasonable on the grounds that: I. M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, an asphalt tanker, suffered breakage on the shell plates and cargo hold and severe damage to the heat insulating materials of cargo holds. For the purpose of permanent repair, high standard of technique and quality are required. Murakami Hide as the shipbuilder of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is very familiar with her particulars such as design, structure and materials, etc. Murakami Hide??s undertaking of repair could increase the operation efficiency, save the time of waiting for supply and import of special materials, and ensure the quality of repair. II. The expenses of labour in China, the price of ordinary steel plate and materials are lower than those in Japan, but the traditional holidays, Spring Festival (commencing from 12 to 18 February 2002), may inevitably increase the overtime payment or extend the time of repair for another 7 to 8 days. Pursuant to the Evaluation Report for Repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± issued by Teamhead, it would take 4 to 9 more days if undertaking ship repair in China instead of in Murakami Hide, Japan. In addition to the time spent for deviation and waiting for entry into dockyard, the repair would take 12 to 20 more days. The daily hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± as a special purpose vessel is USD 7,000. Accordingly, the loss of profit would be increased to USD 84,000 to USD 140,000 if undertaking permanent repair in China excluding the loss caused by waiting for import or supply of materials. Moreover, the personnel of the vessel operator in charge of the ship repair are required to go to China, which would undoubtedly incur additional cost of superintendence and travel. Such being the case, the total repair costs should have been over USD600,000 if M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was repaired in China.  III. NKK ascertained after survey that the scope, type, cost and time of permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± due to her collision with M/V ?°Hui Yang?± are fair and reasonable.


The collegial panel holds as follows: In accordance with the Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court on Determination of Property Damage Compensation in the Trial of Cases of Ship Collision and Contact, ship repair due to collision accident shall be carried out in the nearest place available, unless otherwise the applicant of repair is able to prove that it may minimize the loss and cost, or provide other reasonable grounds if the repair is carried out in other places. The Plaintiff believes that it can minimize the loss and cost if the repair is carried out in Japan. However, it is ascertained in the Survey Report issued by Teamhead that the Chinese shipyard is able to undertake permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, and the reasonable repair cost is only USD417, 2997. The cost of permanent repair incurred in China would still be lower than that in Japan, even considering the additional loss for detention for 12 to 20 days due to deviation from Fuzhou to Shanghai, waiting for tide and entry of dock, and holidays for Chinese Spring Festival. Accordingly, the collegial panel holds that the repair cost in the amount of USD417, 297 as estimated by Teamhead should be ascertained as the reasonable repair cost for M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. Additionally, in consideration of the loss for detention for 16 days in the amount of USD112, 000 as estimated by Teamhead according to the circumstances, the total repair cost of and loss for detention suffered by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± should be USD529,297. Furthermore, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± grounded due to the collision accident so that the damage arising therefrom does have a causal connection with the collision accident. Therefore, the cost and expenses of repair for damage caused by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±??s grounding should fall within the loss due to the collision accident. The Classification Certificate for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was issued by NKK whose undertaking of survey of the repair scope, the vessel??s seaworthiness, and other matters and issuance of corresponding certificate of survey are in compliance with the rules and regulations of classification society and usual practice. NKK also carried out a survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Mawei port, Fuzhou on 18 January 2002. Therefore, the Defendant??s allegation that NKK did not obtain the qualification of undertaking ship survey in China and that the survey carried out by NKK violated relevant laws and regulations of the PRC should not be supported. 


30.	Agency Fees Incurred in the Course of Permanent Repair


The Plaintiff alleged that the agency fee incurred in the course of permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is in the amount of JPY224, 670, and provided the invoice of cost and expenses incurred by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Kinoura, Makiyama, Japan. It is indicated in the invoice provided by the Plaintiff as follows: On 3 February 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± arrived in Japan for permanent repair and paid the customs clearance and port charges at Kinoura in the amount of JPY42, 480. On 4 February 2002, the Plaintiff??s agent hired launches for going through quarantine and customs formalities at Matsuyama at the hire of JPY14, 700. Between 1 and 4 February 2002, the Plaintiff??s agent had paid some cost of transportations in the amount of JPY14, 140 for going through entry formalities. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± had paid for carrying out permanent repair the communication charges in the amount of JPY42, 000 including telex and telephone charges and etc., and fees for immigration and quarantine procedures at Matsuyama, Japan. The Japanese agent of the Plaintiff submitted to the Coast Guard of Matsuyama the application for entering into port and paid JPY17, 400. The postage incurred by delivery of relevant documents amounts to JPY1, 530, of which the postage in the amount of JPY510 incurred by delivery of documents to crew members that has no connection with the collision accident is deducted, and thus the postage caused by the collision is JPY1, 020. The service charges of the Plaintiff??s Japanese agent for permanent repair amount to JPY75, 000. Accordingly, the total agency fees amount to JPY 224, 670, which should be paid by 26 February 2002. 


The Defendant alleged during the examination of evidence that it is unreasonable to carry out permanent repair for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Japan, and refused to recognize the agency fees incurred in Japan. 


The collegial panel holds as follows: For the purpose of undertaking permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, relevant customs, quarantine and entry and exit formalities are required to be handled at local competent authorities. Thus the agency fees arising therefrom were paid by reason of the repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. The Defendant raised a dissention on undertaking permanent repair of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Japan, but the agency fee can not be avoided even if the permanent repair is carried out in China. The agency fee incurred in the course of the repair is related to the collision accident and falls into the ?°auxiliary expenses?± as provided in Article 16 of the Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court on Determination of Property Damage Compensation in the Trial of Cases of Ship Collision and Contact and as supported by relevant evidence. Furthermore, the Defendant did not raise any objection to the amount of the agency fees. Therefore, the aforesaid agency fees as claimed by the Plaintiff in the amount of JPY 224,670 should be ascertained. 


31.	Loss of Hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


In accordance with the Time Charter of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, Nissho Shipping sublet M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to Tsurumi Yuso Co., Ltd on 18 March 1997 on behalf of the vessel owner. The term of charter is 5 to 7 years, and the charterer has the option to extend the charter term for one more year respectively prior to the expiry of 5/6 years of charter. The vessel should be delivered from 15 June to 15 July 1997. The daily hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± is USD7, 000. With regard to off hire, it is stipulated in the Time Charter that the vessel should be off hire in the event of loss of time due to ship collision, repair or other causes. 


The Plaintiff claimed as follows: The collision accident took place at 1512 hrs on 21 December 2001. At 0620 hrs on 25 January 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± proceeded to her discharging berth after temporary patching of the breakage of hull. The first off-hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± lasted 34.63056 days, which caused loss of hire in the amount of USD242, 413.92. At 1945 hrs on 26 January 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± removed the discharging manifold branch after all the goods were discharged and continued temporary repair. At 1410 hrs on 31 January 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± finished the temporary repair and obtained interim seaworthiness certificate. The second off-hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± lasted 4.76736 days, which caused loss of hire in the amount of USD 33, 371.52. At 1355 hrs on 3 February 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± arrived at Ehime pref., Japan and accepted permanent repair in Murakami Hide. At 1310 hrs on 22 February 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± completed permanent repair and return to normal operation. The third off-hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± lasted 18.96875 days, which caused the loss of hire in the amount of USD132, 781.25. Accordingly, the total loss caused by the aforesaid off-hire amounts to USD408, 566.69. 


The Defendant refused to recognize the aforesaid claims filed by the Plaintiff on the grounds that: I. The Plaintiff failed to submit the original Time Charter within the time limit of adducing evidence. Instead, the original Time Charter was submitted after the trial; II. The Time Charter is actually a false contract as it was concluded on 18 March 1997 which was before the date of built of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± (17 June 1997); III. The Time Charter was not concluded by the Plaintiffs so that it has no right to claim compensation for loss of off hire on the basis thereof; IV. Even if the Plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation for loss of off hire, such loss should be deducted by the savable expenses. 


The Plaintiff claimed during the evidence examination as follows: I. The Plaintiff has submitted the notarized copy of the Time Charter within the period of adducing evidence. The original copy thereof was submitted after trial only for the purpose of further proving the form of the evidence. Thus the regulations on period of adducing evidence are not applicable in this regard. II. According to the shipping practice, it is rather usual of a ship owner to conclude charter party with regard to a vessel under construction. Because if the owner looks for charterer after the vessel was built and delivered into service, it will cause unnecessary lay-up loss. Conclusion of a charter party prior to the completion of construction of a vessel is not prohibited by any of the laws and regulations of the PRC. Instead, it is allowed by the law of the PRC to conclude contracts subject to any condition or time limit which will become effective when the conditions are satisfied or the time limit expires. According to the Time Charter, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± should be delivered in any time between 15 June and 15 July 1997, which conforms to the date of completion of construction. Apparently, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± can be delivered to the charterer as per the stipulations of the Time Charter. III. Nissho, as the vessel operator of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, concluded with Tsurumi Yuso Co., Ltd the Charter Party on behalf of the Plaintiff, which is in compliance with the Ship Management Agreement and shipping practice. IV. Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 6, 7 of the Time Charter, ?°the Owners to provide and pay for all wages of the crew and relevant charges, for insurance of the vessel, for regular repair and maintenance, and for stores and fresh water; the Charterers to provide and pay for fuel oil, agency service, port charges and stevedorage, etc., and all the aforesaid charges and expenses shall be for the Charterers?? account during off-hire period.?± During off hire period, expenses such as wages of the crew, insurance of the vessel, cost of stores and fresh water and other cost and expenses for supporting the normal operation of the vessel which are for the owner??s account could not be reduced. In addition, the owner should also bear the cost of fuel oil, agency fee, port charges and stevedorage and other expenses which should have been borne by the charterer. Accordingly, there is no such cost savable for the owner. The Plaintiff should have the right to claim compensation for the total loss of hire.


The collegial panel holds as follows: The Plaintiff submitted the notarized copy of the Time Charter within the period of adducing evidence, and its submission of the original copy thereof is in compliance with the regulation in respect of limitation period of adducing evidence. Furthermore, in the course of construction of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, the Plaintiff concluded the Time Charter with the charterer in advance agreeing on commencing the hire on the date when the vessel is delivered into service, which is also in compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The Ship Management Agreement of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± can prove that Nissho is the vessel operator. A vessel operator??s concluding charter party on behalf of the ship owner is in compliance with such Agreement and shipping practice. However, the Defendant alleged without providing other rebuttal evidence that the aforesaid Time Charter is a false contract. It presented an argument that the Time Charter was not concluded by the Plaintiff and was executed prior to the date when M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was built, which lacks of factual or legal basis. Thus the daily hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± should be ascertained as USD7, 000 according to the Time Charter. In addition, during the off hire period, the costs, such as the wages of the crew, insurance of the vessel, cost of stores and fresh water and other cost and expenses for supporting the normal operation of the vessel which are for the account of the Plaintiff were still incurred even if the vessel was off hire. Therefore, the operating losses sustained by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± should be ascertained as per the hire rate thereof. 


After the collision accident, it took 39.39792 days to carry out salvage, temporary repair, and 18.96875 days to undertake permanent repair for M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. Therefore her days off hire totals 58.36667 days. According to the daily hire rate of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of USD7, 000, the loss of hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± amounts to USD408, 566.69 and shall be computed from 23 February 2002. 


32.	Loss of Fuel Oil during Off-Hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±


In the light of Clause 7 of the Time Charter of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, the cost of oil fuel are for the account of the charterer during the chartering, but for the account of the owner during off hire period. The Plaintiff claimed as follows: During the first off hire period between 25 December 2001 and 25 January 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± consumed 8.83 tons of diesel oil counting for USD2,454.74 (calculated at the price of USD278/ton), and 5.5 tons of bunker oil counting for USD739.20 (calculated at the price of USD134.40/ton); During the second off hire period between 26 and 31 January 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± consumed 28.51 tons of diesel oil counting for USD7, 425.71 (calculated at the price of USD260.46/ton), and 45.32 tons of bunker oil counting for USD5, 880.72 (calculated at the price of USD129.76/ton); During the third off hire period between 3 and 22 February 2002, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± consumed 6.74 tons of diesel oil counting for USD1, 755.50 (calculated at the price of USD260.46/ton), and 3.81 tons of bunker oil counting for USD494.39 (calculated at the price of USD129.76/ton). In total, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± has consumed fuel oil counting for USD18, 750.26. The Plaintiff has provided the Statement of the Loss of Fuel Oil sustained by and the Hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± issued by the charterer in support of the aforesaid claims. 


The Defendant has objection to the aforesaid claims, but did not provide any rebuttal evidence. 


The collegial panel holds that, in accordance with the Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court on Determination of Property Damage Compensation in the Trial of Cases of Ship Collision and Contact, the fuel oil is consumed for the purpose of supporting the vessel. The cost thereof shall be included in the compensation for losses and damage caused by collision accident. As per the Time Charter, the costs of fuel oil are for the account of the charterer during the chartering, but for the account of the owner during off hire period. The consumption of fuel oil by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± during the off hire period falls within the losses caused by the collision accident. Therefore, the Plaintiff shall have the right to claim for compensation. The fuel oil consumed by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± during off hire period which totally counts for USD18, 750.26 as supported by the evidence should be ascertained. The loss of fuel oil consumed during off hire period shall be computed from 23 February 2002. 


33.	Additional Expenses Required to Be Paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± during Off Hire Period


The Plaintiff claimed that as per the agreements in the Time Charter, the charterer shall pay the Plaintiff on a monthly basis at the stipulated time of payment of hire the additional expenses in the amount of USD1, 850 in lump sum or pro rata, including costs of communication, entertainment and accommodation, etc. Since M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was off hire due to the collision accident, the Plaintiff was prevented from collecting the aforesaid additional expenses totaling USD3, 604.45 from the charterer. However, they were still incurred and required to be paid by the ship owner even though the vessel was off hire. The aforesaid additional expenses were also caused by the collision accident and thus should be compensated. 


The Defendant has objection to the aforesaid claim, but did not provide any rebuttal evidence. 


The collegial panel holds as follows: The aforesaid expenses as claimed by the Plaintiff which could not be collected from the charterer during the off hire period should be paid by the owner as the compensation for loss caused by the collision accident in question. The Plaintiff has provided evidence in support of relevant facts. Therefore, the Plaintiff?? claim of the aforesaid losses in the amount of USD3, 604.45 should be ascertained, and should be computed from 23 February 2002.


In summary, reasonable losses sustained by the Plaintiff due to the collision accident include: Salvage fee paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of RMB18, 000 incurred on 3 April 2002; Cost of diving survey for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of USD 6,000 incurred on 26 December 2001; Cost of patching of shell plate of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± underwater in the amount of USD 120, 000, of which USD72, 000 was incurred on 28 December 2001 and USD48, 000 was incurred on 15 January 2002; Agency fee for arranging temporary patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of USD6, 000 incurred on 1 February 2002; Cost of temporary patching of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± at Mawei Dockyard in the amount of USD47,500 incurred on 11 January 2002; Cost of cleaning up cargo holds Nos. 3 and 5 and cutting off the damaged steel plate of cargo hold No. 5 by Mawei Dockyard in the amount of USD67, 500 incurred on 28 January 2002; Management and service charges collected by Leelloyds in the amount of SGD73, 950.59 incurred on 28 March 2002; Cost of purchasing patching materials for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of USD2,595 incurred on 25 March 2002; Classification survey fee paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of USD1, 147 incurred on 31 January 2002; Cost of shifting and pilotage for refloating M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of RMB4, 806 incurred on 14 January 2002; Tug hire for salvage operation in the amount of RMB389,376 incurred on 14 January 2002; Cost incurred by installation of oil fence paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of RMB45, 000, of which RMB45, 000 was incurred on 30 January 2002 and RMB3, 000 was incurred on 4 February 2002; Hire of small barge for collecting bitumen in the amount of RMB9, 450 incurred on 18 January 2002; Cost of appraisal and environmental monitoring paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in the amount of RMB2, 120 incurred on 4 January 2002; Accommodation fee incurred on 30 December 2001 in the course of handling the maritime accident in the amount of RMB1, 512.60; Agency fee paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to Penavico Fuzhou in the amount of RMB5,000 incurred on 22 February 2002; Cost incurred at Hong Kong on 23 December 2001 for assisting owner??s superintendent, Mr. Kitazawa paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± to Patt Manfield & Co., Ltd. in the amount of USD687.44; Cost of removal of bitumen pollution under water in the amount of RMB350, 000 incurred on 26 April 2002; Cost of supervision of traffic at the scene in the amount of RMB 107, 200 incurred on 1 April 2002; Travel expenses incurred by the representative of the owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± in Fuzhou on 29 January 2002 in the amount of JPY749, 566; Cost of travel and superintendence incurred at Ehime Pref., Japan on 24 February in the amount of JPY373, 400; Fees and expenses of the owner??s superintendent of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± incurred at Ehime Pref., Japan on 25 February 2002 in the amount of JPY1, 923, 890; Survey fee paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± incurred in Japan on 28 February 2002 in the amount of JPY979, 166; Cost of permanent repair for M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and the loss arising therefrom incurred on 6 April in the amount of USD529, 297; Agency fee incurred in the course of permanent repair on 26 February 2002 in the amount of JPY224, 670; Loss of hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± on 23 February 2002 in the amount of USD408, 566.69; Loss of fuel oil during off-hire of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± on 23 February 2002 in the amount of USD18, 750.26; Additional expenses required to be paid by M/V ?°Nissho 1?± during off hire period on 23 February 2002 in the amount of USD3, 604.45. The aforesaid losses total USD1, 211, 647.84, which is equivalent to SGD73, 950.59, RMB935, 464.60 or JPY4, 250, 692.00. 


vii.	Losses Sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


1. 	Cost of Repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


As requested by the Defendant, China Classification Society, Fuzhou Branch attended on 6 January 2002 and subsequent dates aboard M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in Fuzhou in order to carry out damage survey. On 5 February 2002, it issued a Survey Report of Damage to the Bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± and the Repair thereof. It is specified in the Survey Report the conditions of damage to M/V ?°Hui Yang?± due to the collision accident and recommendations of repair thereof as follows: 


(1)	Cast steel stem post and stem plate between water lines of 0.7 meters and 12 meters were dented and twisted with a number of cracking, of which the largest dent was about 2500 mm deep. Repair recommendations: To cut off and replace the same between water lines of 0.65 meters and 12.5 meters (joint with the upper plate) according to original size. 


(2)	Inward dent and a number of cracking were found between Fr. 196 and ship??s bow under water line of 12 meters on the port bow plate, of which the largest dent was about 2000mm deep. Repair recommendations: To cut off and replace the part between water lines of 0.65 meters and 12.5 meters (joint with the upper plate) and between Fr.196 ¨C Fr.300 (joint with the shell plate) and ship??s bow according to original size. 


(3)	Dents, warping and a number of cracking were found between the Fr.198 and Fr.196 to ship??s bow under water line of 12 meters on the starboard bow plate. Repair recommendations: To cut off and replace the part between water lines of 0.65 meters and 12.5 meters (joint with the upper plate) and between Fr.196 ¨C Fr.300 (joint with the shell plate) and ship??s bow according to original size.


(4)	Dents, bending, warping and a number of cracking were found in the internal structures of the aforesaid stem post and shell plates. Repair recommendations: To cut off and replace the internal structures between water lines of 0.65 meters and 12.5 meters as well as between Fr.195 and ship??s bow according to original size.


It was also recommended by China Classification Society that permanent repair of the aforesaid damage to ship??s bow should carried out and completed after the vessel entered into dock by reason of the cracking between cast steel stem post and stem plate which extended to water line 0.7 meters. 


The results of repair specified in the aforesaid Survey Report are as follows: The aforesaid damage to the ship??s bow was repaired in the dockyard of Lianjiang Wenwan Ocean Ship Repair Factory (hereinafter referred to as ?°Wenwan Repair Yard?±) as per the aforesaid recommendations. The surveyor of China Classification Society inspected the repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in line with the requirements.


Journals of the repair are specified in the aforesaid Survey Report as follows: M/V ?°Hui Yang?± entered into the dockyard on 7 January, entered into the dock on 14 January, and left the dock and then dockyard on 1 February 2002. 


The Plaintiff raised a dissention on the aforesaid Survey Report claiming that within the period of adducing evidence, the Defendant only submitted the copy of the Survey Report of Damage to the Bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± which was issued by China Classification Society on 24 January 2002, and that the Defendant submitted the original copy of the Survey Report of Damage to the Bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± and the Repair thereof dated 5 February 2002 issued by China Classification Society on 22 July 2004 when the court was in session. The contents of the aforesaid reports are not completely identical. Therefore the Plaintiff claimed that the Survey Report dated 5 February 2002 should not be recognized. 


The collegial panel holds as follows: As per the Repair Schedule, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± entered into the shipyard on 7 January 2002 accepting repair and left the shipyard on 1 February 2002 upon completion of repair. Accordingly, the Survey Report of Damage to the Bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± dated 24 January 2002 submitted by the Defendant within the period of adducing evidence was an interim report issued by China Classification Society, Fuzhou Branch in the course of the repair. In fact, the Survey Report of Damage to the Bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± and Repair thereof dated 5 February 2002 was the final survey report issued upon the completion of repair, of which the Defendant submitted the original copy. Thus the Survey Report dated 5 February 2002 should be recognized.


With regard to relevant repair costs, the collegial panel holds as follows:


?? Cost of Temporary Repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


After the collision, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± entered into Mawei Dockyard in Fu Jian on 7 January 2002 for temporary repair, for which the Defendant paid Mawei Dockyard RMB9, 069. The Plaintiff has no dissention on such cost. Therefore the cost of temporary repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± should be ascertained. 


?? Cost of Permanent Repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


The Defendant provided the copy of the Repair Agreement entered into by and between Sun Font and Wenwan Repair Yard on 8 January 2002 in support of the cost of permanent repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. It is stipulated in the Agreement as follows: The repair projects should be determined by both parties after joint onboard investigation. Waste materials removed in the course of repair operation shall be disposed by Wenwan Repair Yard; the term of repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± at the dock shall be no more than 8 days, but may be extended in case more repair projects are required. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± shall enter into the dockyard on 8 January 2002 and leave on 24 January so that the duration amounts to 15 days. It is agreed by and between the parties that about 70 tons of steel plate and steel structure which count for RMB850, 000 are to be cut off and replaced after relevant measurement and calculation. Due to the complex structure thereof, the actual cost will be determined after they are cut off and investigated. The Plaintiff raised a dissention on the form of the aforesaid evidence by reason of the absence of the original documents. 


The Defendant also provided the copy of the Statement of Repair Cost of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± issued on 1 February 2002 which has the signatures of the representatives of the Defendant and Wenwan Repair Yard and the company seal of the latter. It is concluded in the Statement that the total repair cost of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± amounts to RMB1, 251,076. The Plaintiff raised a dissention on the form of the aforesaid evidence by reason of the absence of the original documents.


The Defendant also produced 9 original invoices issued by Wenwan Repair Yard in the amount of RMB820, 000. On 10 January 2002, the Defendant paid Wenwan Repair Yard RMB100, 000 for the repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± through China Merchants Bank, Guangzhou Branch, Wuyang Subbranch. The Plaintiff claimed that the repair cost claimed by the Defendant was different from the amount specified in the invoices it provided. 


On 13 April 2004, the Plaintiff requested this Court to appoint an appropriate appraiser to evaluate and appraise the reasonable time and cost of repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± due to the collision accident in question in accordance with the scope of repair estimated by China Classification Society in the Survey Report of Damage to the Bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± and Repair thereof. On 18 June 2004, China Classification Society Industrial Corp., Guangzhou Branch as appointed by this Court issued an Evaluation Report of Repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. According to the extent and scope of damage and recommendations of repair provided by the Survey Report of Damage to the Bow of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± issued by China Classification Society, Fuzhou Branch and relevant drawings, on the basis of the price provided by the List of Repair Cost of Domestic Civilian Vessels of China Classification Society Industrial Corp. (hereinafter referred to as ?°92 Yellow Book?±) multiplied by 1.3 and on the basis of the reasonable cost of replacing plates, and in consideration of the capability and technique of local ship repair yards in Fu Jian province, China Classification Society Industrial Corp., Guangzhou Branch issued the following appraisal: 1. In consideration of the technique of local ship repair yards in Fu Jian province in the year of 2002, it will take 18 days for completing the permanent repair for the damage to M/V ?°Hui Yang?± (14 days at dock and 4 days at berth); 2. As per the standard repair cost in Fujian in 2002, the permanent repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± requires RMB706, 268. The Defendant agrees with the aforesaid Evaluation Report, but the Plaintiff held an opposite opinion. It claimed hat the reasonable quantity of steel plate to be cut off is estimated as 43.434 tons which is not nearly the quantity of 70 tons as specified in the Repair Agreement provided by the Defendant. However, the time and cost estimated and appraised is almost identical with that claimed by the Defendant. Therefore the Plaintiff claimed the repair cost should be RMB527, 410 calculated as per the proportion of steel plate being cut off. 


The Defendant agrees with the Evaluation Report of Repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± which was made upon the request of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff has objection to the result thereof, but failed to provide sufficient rebuttal evidence. The Plaintiff??s argument of calculating relevant repair costs as per the proportion of the damaged steel plate to be cut off and replaced is lack of scientific basis. In addition, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 77 of Some Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures, the authentication conclusions are more forceful than other written evidences. The collegial panel holds that the result of the aforesaid Evaluation Report that the permanent repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± cost RMB706, 268 and took18 days (computed from 7 January 2002 when the vessel entered into dock accepting repair to 25 January 2002 when the repair was completed) should be ascertained. 


2. 	Survey Fee caused by M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


The Defendant paid China Classification Society, Fuzhou Branch the survey fee in the amount of RMB3, 948 on 31 January 2002, to which the Plaintiff has no objection. On the same day, the Defendant paid the consultative department of Fu Jian Information Centre of Science and Technology RMB4, 800. The said department issued an invoice thereof specifying ?°Damage to M/V ?°Hui Yang?±; Fair; Single Voyage.?± The Plaintiff raised a dissention that such expense has no connection with the case in question. However, the Defendant claimed that such expense is part of the survey fee and was paid to the account designated by China Classification Society, Fuzhou Branch. 


The collegial panel holds as follows: The Defendant failed to submit evidence in support of the account designated by China Classification Society, Fuzhou Branch, and the beneficiary of the aforesaid expense is not the institution undertaking survey of the damage to the vessel. Therefore, such cost has no connection with this case and should not be ascertained. 


3. 	Loss of Hire of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


The Defendant provided the Time Charter concluded with Fuzhou Haida Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ?°Haida?±) on 10 December 2001 in support of the loss of hire of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. It is stipulated in this Time Charter that: Sun Font is the Owner and Haida is the Charterer thereto; The Owner agrees to let and the Charterer agrees to hire the vessel for 3 + 3 calendar months, and ?? 15 days and renewal of hire at the Owner??s option; the Charterer shall pay for the use and hire of the vessel at the rate of RMB25,000/day which shall be paid on a daily basis, commencing on and from the day of her delivery to the date of her redelivery. The rate of hire less than one day should be calculated pro rata. With regard to off hire, it is stipulated as follows: In the event of loss of time due to detention by marine accidents to the vessel or cargo including detention caused by collision or grounding; Should the Vessel be prevented or impeded from full working or become unavailable for the Charterer due to repair, entry into dry dock or other measures necessary for maintaining her performance, the Vessel should be off hire and the hire is to be suspended from the time lost until she is resumed into service, and the Vessel should be at the position which does not cause any loss to the Charterer compared with the position upon the loss of time. 


The Plaintiff claimed in the course of evidence examination that: I. The Defendant can not provide any evidence in support of the fact that M/V ?°Hui Yang?± became off hire due to the collision accident. The Notice of Off-Hire and Statement of Hire Deduction of the charterer can not prove M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was off hire. Thus such claim should not be recognized; II. The loss of hire claimed by the Defendant on the basis of hire rate of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± should be deducted by the cost and expenses savable. 


The collegial panel holds as follows: The hire rate of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in the amount of RMB25, 000 as stipulated in the Time Charter provided by the Defendant should be ascertained. As per the abovementioned facts, under the Time Charter, there is no cost or expense savable for the owner during off hire period. Thus the loss of hire sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± can be determined on the basis of her hire rate stipulated in the Time Charter. At 1510 hrs on 21 December 2001, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± collided with M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and grounded thereafter. At 1805 hrs on 22 December 2001, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± refloated after 1.122 days of salvage operation. In addition, it took 3 days to carry out temporary repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±, and the reasonable time for permanent repair thereof should be 18 days. The reasonable loss of hire sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± should be 22.22 days, and the loss of hire amounts to RMB555, 500. 


4. 	Other Losses Sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


(1)	 Expenses of Salvage for and Discharge of Goods on Board of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


On 31 December 2001, the Defendant and Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd. entered into a Discharge Agreement. It is agreed that Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd. collects all the expenses in the amount of RMB257, 096.80 with regard to discharge of goods about 10,000 tons, that all the goods discharged shall be owned by Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd., and that Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd. undertakes to issue the full and official invoice of expenses of discharge specifying as the salvage fee and deliver the same to the Defendant. 


The Defendant provided 17 invoices specially used for loading, unloading and transporting goods in Fuzhou issued by Fuzhou Changxin Standstone Co., Ltd. dated 1 April 2002 totaling RMB163, 800 for 12,600 tons of goods at the rate of RMB 13/ton. According to the explanation of the Defendant, Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd. sold the river sand discharged from M/V ?°Hui Yang?± to Fuzhou Changxin Standstone Co., Ltd. which issued the aforesaid 17 invoices thereafter. The expense indicated in the invoices also falls within the expenses of discharge of goods. The Plaintiff believes that Fuzhou Changxin Standstone Co., Ltd. and Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd. which carried out the discharge of goods are different companies. Fuzhou Changxin Standstone Co., Ltd. should have issued sales invoice but not invoice of discharge of goods. Additionally, the quantity of the cargo on board of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± is different from that specified in the invoice. Therefore, the aforesaid expenses should not be ascertained. 


The collegial panel holds as follows: 


I.	The Defendant admitted that Fuzhou Changxin Standstone Co., Ltd. has purchased the river sand discharged from M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. Thus Fuzhou Changxin Standstone Co., Ltd. should have issued the sales invoice instead of invoice of discharge of goods. Accordingly, the claim for compensation for the expense of salvage and discharge for M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in the amount of RMB163, 800 as specified in the aforesaid 17 invoices filed by the Defendant should not be supported.


II.	The Defendant provided another invoice of port charges in the amount of RMB74, 000 issued by Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd. which specifies the goods name, river sand, and the quantity thereof in the amount of 10,000 tons as well as the rate thereof RMB 7.4/ton. On 15 January 2002, the Defendant paid Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd. the salvage fee in the amount of RMB100, 000 through China Merchants Bank, Guangzhou Branch, Wuyang Subbranch. As claimed by the Defendant, the aforesaid expense falls within the expenses of salvage and discharge for M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. The Plaintiff has no objection thereto. The aforesaid expense should be ascertained as per the amount of RMB74, 000 indicated in the invoice issued by Fuzhou Songmen Port Co., Ltd. 


(2)	Charges for Tug??s Service Incurred by Salvage of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±


The Defendant provided an invoice of towage in the amount of RMB90, 581.45 issued by Fuzhou Port Authority. The Defendant remitted through China Merchants Bank, Guangzhou Branch, Wuyang Subbranch to the account of Fuzhou Port Authority RMB50, 000 and RMB51, 039.45 (including outward and inward towages totaling RMB10, 458) respectively on 15 and 25 January 2002 for the aforesaid towages. The aforesaid expense to which Plaintiff has no objection should be ascertained. 


(3)	Expenses of Refloating, Shifting and Piloting of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in Fuzhou


The Defendant provided the explanation of charges issued by Fuzhou pilot station on 7 January 2002 and the receipt of TT (telegraphic transfer) of China Merchants Bank dated 16 January. It specifies the expenses of refloating, shifting and piloting of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in Fuzhou port totaling RMB7, 676 paid by the Defendant to Fuzhou pilot station. The aforesaid expenses to which the Plaintiff has no objection should be ascertained. 


(4)	Agency Fee Sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± due to the Handling of Collision Accident


The Defendant claimed that it paid M/V ?°Hui Yang?± the agency fee in the amount of RMB210, 625 for the purpose of handling the accident. However, it only provided an invoice dated 7 March 2002 indicating the agency fee in the amount of RMB2, 000 as issued by Mawei Xinggang Shipping Agency Co., Ltd. in Fuzhou. The Plaintiff admitted the agency fee in the amount of RMB2, 000 as evidenced by the said invoice, but refused to admit those without any supporting evidence. The collegial panel holds that the agency fee in the amount of RMB2, 000 as evidenced by the corresponding invoice can be ascertained, but those without any supporting evidence should not be ascertained. 


(5)	Communication Fees Sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± due to the Handling of Collision Accident


The Defendant provided two invoices dated 14 March 2002 indicating the communication fees sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± totaling RMB2, 115.30 due to the handling of the collision accident. The Plaintiff admitted the aforesaid communication fees. The collegial panel holds that the communication fees sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± due to the handling of the collision accident should be ascertained 


(6)	Traveling Expenses Sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± due to the Handling of Collision Accident 


The Defendant has sustained travelling expenses due to the collision accident in the amount of RMB28, 301.39 (of which RMB5, 320.18 was reimbursed on 16 January 2002, RMB5, 803.21 was reimbursed on 7 February 2002, RMB5, 400 was reimbursed on 8 February 2002, and RMB8, 122 was reimbursed on 23 April 2002, but the date of reimbursement of the remaining amount of RMB3, 656 is unspecified), for which relevant supporting documents were provided. The Plaintiff admitted the aforesaid traveling expenses as reasonable cost. Therefore, the collegial panel holds that the aforesaid traveling expenses sustained by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± due to the handling of collision accident should be ascertained. 


In summary, the Defendant has suffered the following losses due to the collision accident: Cost of temporary repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in the amount of RMB9, 069 incurred on 7 January 2002; Cost of permanent repair of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in the amount of RMB706, 268 ( of which RMB100, 000 was incurred on 10 January 2002 and RMB606, 268 was incurred on 26 January 2002; Survey fee caused by M/V ?°Hui Yang?± in the amount of RMB3, 948 incurred on 31 January 2002; Loss of Hire in the amount of RMB555, 500 incurred on 26 January 2002; Cost of salvage and discharge in the amount of RMB74, 000 incurred on 15 January 2002; Towage in the amount of RMB90, 581.45 (of which RMB50, 000 was incurred on 15 January 2002 and RMB40, 581.45 was incurred on 25 January 2002); Expenses of refloating, shifting, and piloting in Fuzhou in the amount of RMB7, 676 incurred on 16 January 2002; Agency fee incurred by handling of collision accident on 7 March 2002 in the amount of RMB2,000; Communication fee incurred by handling of collision accident in the amount of RMB2, 115.30 on 14 March 2002; Traveling expenses incurred by handling of collision accident in the amount of RMB28, 301.39 (of which RMB5, 320.18 was incurred on 16 January 2002, RMB5, 803.21 was incurred on 7 February 2002, RMB5, 400 was incurred on 8 February 2002, RMB8, 122 was incurred on 23 April 2002, and the remaining amount of RMB3, 656 was determined as incurred on 23 April 2002 as the date of reimbursement is unspecified). The aforesaid losses amount to RMB1, 479, 459.14 in total. 


The collegial panel is of the following opinions:


The subject case involves dispute over damage caused by ship collision. 

(1)	Jurisdiction

The cause of action of the subject case falls within maritime torts. In accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People??s Republic of China, a lawsuit brought on a tortious act shall be under the jurisdiction of the People??s Court of the place where the tort is committed or where the defendant has his domicile. The accident in question took place in the territorial sea of the People??s Republic of China, and the Defendant has its domicile under the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court have jurisdiction over this case. 


(2)	Applicable Law

The accident in question took place in the territorial sea of the People??s Republic of China. In accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 273 of the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China, the law of the place where the infringing act is committed shall apply to claims for damages arising from collision of ships. Therefore, the law of the People??s Republic of China shall apply to this case. 


With regard to the proportion of liability and faults of both vessels, The Collegial Panel holds that:

1.  Faults of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±: 

(1)	Improper timing to turn around. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± proceeded inbound at an improper time. Even though M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was fully loaded at that time, her maximum draft was only 6.19 meters. Thus she did not need to proceed on tide. However, when M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was aware that there was some vessel with deep draft proceeding outbound on the tide in the vicinity, she still turned without careful consideration and proceeded inbound entering into the main channel of Mingjiang. Furthermore, she failed to apply good seamanship and caused the close quarter situation with M/V ?°Hui Yang?±, which is against the provisions of Rule 8 of the COLREGs. 


(2)	Negligence of Lookout. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± failed to adopt proper lookout so as to observe the movement of other vessels in the vicinity before she proceeded inbound. Thus she failed to make correct judgment of the risk of collision and turned to starboard without making appropriate signals. Her conducts violated the provisions of Rule 5 of COLREGs and the Ru1es of the Ministry of Communication of the People??s Republic of China on Coastal Harbour Signals.


(3)	Failure in making a full appraisal of the risk of collision and to take proper measures to avoid collision. At 1508 hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± started turning to starboard. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± mistakenly thought M/V ?°Hui Yang?±??s turning to starboard was for avoiding Xifengshi reef in the north of the channel, and altered the course to port. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± failed to properly judge the current situation and estimate the risk of collision so that she did not provide any measures to avoid collision. Eventually, the two vessels failed to carry out proper coordination and then collided with each other. M/V ?°Nissho 1?± violated the provisions of Rule 7 and 8 of COLREGs.


2.  Fault of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±:


(1)	Failure in complying with the regulations on navigation in narrow channels. At 1500 hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was on the north side of Mingjiang main channel heading 091. Between 1503 hrs and 1508 hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± still stayed at such position. From 1500 hrs to 1508 hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± has been navigating outbound in the north of Mingjiang main channel which is an inbound channel, which violated the provisions of Rule 9 of the COLREGs and Article 10 and 13 of port regulations of Fuzhou port, and caused the close quarter situation with the inbound vessel M/V ?°Nissho 1?±.  


(2)	Negligence of lookout and failure in making a full appraisal of the risk of collision: At 1500 hrs, M/V ?°Nissho 1?±??s anchor aweigh. Subsequently, pilot of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± informed the master that M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was heaving up anchor for proceeding inbound, and observed that the heading of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± was different from that of other anchored vessels. At 1505 hrs, pilot of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± disembarked and informed the master of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±??s turning around. Apparently, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was aware of the movement of M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. However, after pilot disembarked the master of M/V ?°Hui Yang?± committed negligence of lookout and failed to observe the following movement of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and to undertake timely communication and coordination with M/V ?°Nissho 1?± for preventing collision, which result in her failure to make a full and proper appraisal of the situation and risk of collision. Pilot disembarked from M/V ?°Hui Yang?± at improper timing when knowing that M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was about to encounter the inbound vessel M/V ?°Nissho1?± so that the pilot committed neglect of precaution. Accordingly, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± violated the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Rule 2 and Rule 5 of COLREGs.


(3)	Failure to consider departing from the rules on emergency and to adopt effective measures to avoid collision. At 1508 hrs, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± passed on the north of M/V ?°Wan Zhi?±. At that time, M/V ?°Hui Yang?± was about 0.38 nms away from M/V ?°Nissho 1?± which turned her cause to 277. The two vessels then came into a ?°starboard to starboard?± situation. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± merely insisted turning to starboard without full appraisal and consideration of all the dangers of navigation and risk of collision under such special circumstance, and eventually collided with M/V ?°Nissho 1?±. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± failed to consider departing from the rules on emergency and to apply good seamanship by substantially turning to starboard when the waters in the starboard side was insufficient, which violated the provision of Paragraph 2 of Rule 2 and Rule 8 of the COLREGs.


In summary, M/V ?°Nissho 1?±??s improper movement is the main cause of the collision accident so that M/V ?°Nissho 1?± should bear the major liability for this case. M/V ?°Hui Yang?± also contributed to the collision in question and should bear the secondary liability for this case. In consideration of their degrees of faults, M/V ?°Nissho 1?± should bear 60% of the liabilities and M/V ?°Hui Yang?± should bear 40% of the liabilities. 


With regard to compensation for the damage caused by the ship collision:


The owners of the two vessel involved should be liable for compensation for the damage caused by the ship collision. The Plaintiff is the owner of M/V ?°Nissho 1?± and the Defendant is the owner of M/V ?°Hui Yang?±. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant should be held liable for the damage caused by this ship collision. In accordance with provisions of Paragraph 1and 2 of Article 169 of the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China, ?°if the colliding ships are all in faults, each ship shall be liable in proportion to the extent of its faults; if the respective faults are equal in proportion or it is impossible to determine the extent of the proportion of the respective faults, the liability of the colliding ships shall be apportioned equally. The ships in faults shall be liable for the damage to the ship, the goods and other property on board pursuant to the proportions prescribed in the preceding paragraph. Where damage is caused to the property of a third party, the liability for compensation of any of the colliding ships shall not exceed the proportion it shall bear.?± Therefore, with regard to the current case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall bear corresponding liabilities in proportion to the extent of their faults. 


The losses sustained by the Plaintiff due to the collision accident amount to USD1,211, 647.84, SGD73, 950.59, RMB934, 464.6 and JPY4, 250, 692. As per the aforesaid proportion of liability, i.e. 40%, which should be borne by M/V ?°Hui Yang?±, the Defendant shall compensate for the losses sustained by the Plaintiff in the amount of USD484, 659.14,  SGD29, 580.24, RMB374, 185.84 and JPY1, 700, 276.8 as well as the interests thereof. The losses and interests thereof shall be computed from the date when such losses or relevant expenses were incurred until the date of payment as determined by this Judgment. However, there is no unified foreign currency loan rate in Mainland China since 21 September 2000 when the Notice of the People??s Bank of China on Reform of the Administration of Foreign Currency Loan Rate was promulgated providing that the foreign currency loan rate shall be determined by the financial institutions. For the purpose of determining the interests ex aequo et bono, it should be calculated based on the amount of the losses and expenses which are converted into Renminbi as per the foreign exchange rate on the date when the interested shall be computed. 


The losses sustained by the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the Counterclaim) due to the collision accident amount to RMB1, 479, 459.14. Based on the proportion of liability borne by M/V ?°Nissho 1?±, i.e. 60%, the Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim) shall compensate the Defendant as the Plaintiff in the counterclaim RMB887, 675.48 and the interests thereof. The losses or expenses sustained by the Defendant due to the collision accident shall be computed from the date when such losses or expenses were incurred to the date of payment provided by this Judgment based on the circulating fund loan rate over the same period published by the People??s Bank of China.


In summary, in accordance with provisions of Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 169 and Article 273 of the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China, 


I.	The Defendant (the Plaintiff in the Counterclaim), Guangdong Sun Font Shipping Co., Ltd., shall compensate for losses sustained by the Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim), Golden Palm Maritime S.A., in the amount of USD484, 659.14, SGD29, 580.24, RMB374, 185.84, JPY1, 700, 276.8 as well as the interests thereof. The interests thereof shall be computed from the date when relevant losses or relevant expenses were incurred, as follows: salvage fee in the amount of RMB7, 200 computed from 3 April 2002; cost of diving survey in the amount of USD2, 400 computed from 26 December 2001; cost of patching of hull plate underwater in the amount of USD48, 000 (of which USD28, 800 is computed from 28 December 2001 and USD19,200 is computed from 15 January 2002); agency fee for temporary repair in the amount of USD2, 400 counted from 1 February 2002; cost of temporary patching in the amount of USD19, 000 computed from 11 January 2002; cost of cleaning up cargo holds Nos. 3 and 5 and cutting off the damaged steel plate of cargo hold No. 5 by Mawei Dockyard in the amount of USD27, 000 computed from 28 January 2002; management and service charges collected by Leelloyds in the amount of SGD29, 580.24 computed from 28 March 2002; cost of purchasing patching materials in the amount of USD1,038 computed from 25 March 2002; classification survey fee in the amount of USD458.8 computed from 31 January 2002; cost of shifting and pilotage for refloating in the amount of RMB1, 922.40 computed from 14 January 2002; tug hire for salvage operation in the amount of RMB155,750,40 computed from 14 January 2002; cost incurred by installation of oil fence paid by in the amount of RMB19,200, of which RMB18, 000 is computed from 30 January 2002 and RMB1, 200 is computed from 4 February 2002; hire of small barge for collecting bitumen in the amount of RMB3, 780 computed from 18 January 2002; cost of appraisal and environmental monitoring in the amount of RMB848 incurred on 4 January 2002; accommodation fee in the amount of RMB605.04 computed from 30 December 2001; agency fee in amount of RMB2, 000 computed from 22 February 2002; cost incurred by the owner??s superintendent at Hong Kong in the amount of USD274.98 computed from 23 December 2001; cost of removal of bitumen pollution under water in the amount of RMB140, 000 computed from 26 April 2002; cost of supervision of traffic at the scene in the amount of RMB42, 880 computed from 1 April 2002; travel expenses incurred by the representative of the owner in Fuzhou in the amount of JPY299, 826.40 computed from 29 January 2002; travel and superintendence expense of the owner??s representatives at Ehime Pref., Japan in the amount of JPY149, 360 computed from 24 February 2002; fees and expenses of the owner??s representatives at Ehime Pref., Japan in the amount of JPY769, 556 computed from 25 February 2002; survey fee incurred in the amount of JPY391, 666.40 computed from 28 February 2002; cost of permanent repair and the loss arising therefrom in the amount of USD211, 718.80 computed from 6 April 2002; agency fee in the amount of JPY89, 868 computed from 26 February 2002; loss of hire in the amount of USD163, 426.68 computed from 23 February 2002; loss of fuel oil during off-hire in the amount of USD7, 500.10 computed from 23 February 2002; additional expenses during off-hire period in the amount of USD1, 441.78 computed from 23 February 2002. The aforesaid losses or expenses shall be computed until the date of payment as decided by this Judgment. With regard to losses or expenses in Renminbi currency, the interests thereof shall be calculated based on the circulating fund loan rate during the same period published by the People??s Bank of China. With regard to losses or expenses in foreign currency, the interests thereof shall be calculated based on the circulating fund loan rate for the same period published by the People??s Bank of China after being converted into Renminbi as per the foreign exchange rate published by the People??s Bank of China on the date from which such losses or expenses were computed. 


II.	The Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim), Golden Palm Maritime S.A., shall compensate for losses sustained by the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the Counterclaim), Guangdong Sun Font Shipping Co., Ltd., in the amount of RMB886,475.48. The interests thereof shall be computed from the date when relevant losses or relevant expenses were incurred, which include: cost of temporary repair in the amount of RMB5, 441.4 computed from 7 January 2002; cost of permanent repair in the amount of RMB423, 760.80 (of which RMB60, 000 is computed from 10 January 2002 and RMB363, 760.80 is computed from 26 January 2002; survey fee in the amount of RMB2, 368.80 computed from 31 January 2002; loss of hire in the amount of RMB333, 300 computed from 26 January 2002; cost of salvage and discharge in the amount of RMB44, 400 computed from 15 January 2002; towage in the amount of RMB54, 348.87 (of which RMB30, 000 is computed from 15 January 2002 and RMB24, 348.87 is computed from 25 January 2002); expenses of refloating, shifting, and piloting for entry and exit to the port totally in the amount of RMB4, 605.60 computed from 16 January 2002; agency fee in the amount of RMB1,200 computed from 7 March 2002; communication fee in the amount of RMB1, 269.18 computed from 14 March 2002; traveling expenses in the amount of RMB16, 980.83 (of which RMB3, 192.11 is computed from 16 January 2002, RMB3, 481.93 is computed from 7 February 2002, RMB3, 240 is computed from 8 February 2002, and RMB7, 066.79 is computed from 23 April 2002). The interest of the aforesaid losses or expenses shall be computed until the date of payment as decided by this Judgment, and shall be calculated based on the circulating fund loan rate for the same period published by the People??s Bank of China. 


The court acceptance fee for the subject claim amounts to RMB75, 146, of which RMB46, 801 shall be borne by the Plaintiff and RMB28, 336 shall be borne by the Defendant. The court acceptance fee for the counterclaim amounts to RMB26, 060, of which RMB18, 409 shall be borne by the Plaintiff in the counterclaim and RMB7, 651 shall be borne by the Defendant in the counterclaim. The Plaintiff in the subject claim and the Plaintiff in the counterclaim have prepaid the court acceptance fees respectively, which is not refunded by this Court. After appropriate deduction, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the court acceptance fee in the amount of RMB20, 685. The appraisal fee has been paid by the Defendant in the counterclaim, of which RMB3, 600 shall be borne by the Defendant in the counterclaim, and RMB2, and 400 shall be borne by the Plaintiff in the counterclaim. This Court will not otherwise settle the aforesaid appraisal fee. The Plaintiff in the counterclaim shall directly pay the Defendant in the counterclaim the corresponding proportion thereof. 


The aforesaid obligation of payment shall be accomplished within 10 days after this judgment takes effects. If any of the parties fails to make corresponding payment within the time limit provided by this Judgment, such party shall pay double interest on the debt for the delayed payment in accordance with provisions of Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People??s Republic of China.


If any of the parties objects to this judgment, the Plaintiff (the Defendant in the Counterclaim) may within 10 days and the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the Counterclaim) may within 15 days from the day when this judgment is served submit the statement of appeal to this courts, together with copies made according to the number of parties concerned. The appellate court shall be Guangdong Provincial High People??s Court. 


Presiding Judge	:		Wu Zili

Judge			:		Deng Yufeng

Judge			:		Ni Xuewei

5 May 2011

Official Stamp of Guangzhou Maritime Court

Court Clerk		:		Yang Qian



The translation is provided by Wang Jing & CO.