Guangzhou Maritime Court

The People??s Republic of China 


Civil Judgment 


(2005) GHFCZ No. 334


Plaintiff: Poly Technologies, Inc. 

Address: No. 14 Nan Da Jie, Dong Zhi Men, Dongcheng District, Beijing 

Legal Representative: Chen Hongsheng, Chairman of Board of Directors

Agents ad litem: Chen Longjie and Liu Yun, Attorneys of Greenleaf Law Firm


Defendant: Pyramid Navigation Co., E.S.A.

Address: 10 Al Mesaha Square-Dokki-Giza-Egyt. A1 Massreen Building Business Center ¨C 2nd floor

Legal Representative: Mahmoud Hamdy Hassan Hamdy, Executive Director

Agents ad litem: Zhao Shuzhou and Han Yongdong, Attorneys of Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm  


The Plaintiff Poly Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as ?°Poly Technologies?±) filed an action against the Defendant Pyramid Navigation Co., E.S.A. (?°Pyramid Navigation?±) to this court on 11 August 2005 with regard to the case of dispute over the contract of carriage of cargo by sea. After the court entertained the subject case, the court constituted a collegiate bench according to law and organized both parities to exchange the evidence on 13 October. The subject case was tried openly. The agent ad litem of the Plaintiff Chen Longjie and the agent ad litem of the Defendant Han Yongdong attended the court hearing. The subject case has been finalized. 


The Plaintiff Poly Technologies alleged as follows: M/V ?°Amira?± carried a consignment of Brazilian soybeans to Yangjiang Port on 9 July 2005. The Bs/L stated that the soybeans weighed 58,037.549 tons and the Plaintiff was the consignee of this shipment of cargo. Through weight by draft, it was found that the actual quantity of the cargo discharged by the vessel was 57,660 tons, which was 377.549 tons less than the weight of cargo stated on the Bs/L. As the carrier, the Defendant should be obligated to deliver the cargo to the Plaintiff according to the quantity stated on the Bs/L. Because the Defendant did not perform its obligation and caused the Plaintiff to sustain economic losses, which were calculated as follows: (Cost and freight USD 332.56/ton + USD 332.56 * insurance rate 0.11% + USD 332.56 * import duty 3% + USD 332.56 * import VAT 13% = USD 387.492/ton * 377.549 tons in short = USD 146,297.33. The court was requested to order the Defendant to indemnify the Plaintiff for USD 146,297.33, the interest accrued thereon (calculated at the loan rate for flowing cash by a bank for the same period from 20 July 2005), the case acceptance fee, fees for preservation of evidence and ship arrest prior to the litigation, and other relevant litigation fees. 


The Plaintiff provided the following evidence within the time limit for evidence adduction: 1. a soybean contract entered into by and between Poly Technologies and CHS Inc. and two final commercial invoices issued by CHS Inc.; 2. Bs/L No. 01 and 02; 3. the written Protest for Short Loaded Cargo Quantity issued by the master of M/V ?°Amira?±; 4. the Draft Survey Report of M/V ?°Amira?± at the port of loading; 5. the Inspection Certificate (of Weight by Draft) issued by the Yangjiang Entry-exit Inspection and Quarantine of the People??s Republic of China (?°CIQ Yangjiang?±); 6. the Quantity Confirmation of the soybeans?? entry to the warehouse from M/V ?°Amira?± issued by Yangjiang Baofeng Wharf Co., Ltd. (?°Baofeng Co.?±) and the qualification license for electronic scale of Baofeng Co.; 7. the Cargo Transportation Insurance Policy issued by Ping An Property & Casualty Insurance Company of China Ltd. (?°Ping An Insurance Co.?±), two Endorsements, the supplementary agreement entered into by and between Ping An Insurance Co. and Yangjiang Fengyuan Cereals and Oils Industrial Co., Ltd. (?°Fengyuan Co.?±) and the insurance trade invoice; 8. the import duty invoices and the import VAT invoices; 9. the duplicates of the Civil Judgment (2003) DHSWCZ No. 11 ruled by Dalian Maritime Court; 10. two notices from this court; 11. the ship registration certificate and the ship??s particulars of M/V ?°Amira?±; 12. two L/C and Collection / Payment forms issued by Bank of China. 


The Defendant Pyramid Navigation defended as follows: from 3 to 5 June 2005 M/V ?°Amira?± loaded Brazilian soybeans in bulk at Paranagua Port and set sail on 6 June to carry the cargo to the port of destination, Yangjiang Port, China. After the said cargo was loaded onboard, the agent at the port of loading signed two sets of Bs/L No. 01 and 02 on behalf of the master and stated that the weights of the cargo were respectively 29,018.774 tons and 29,018.775 tons in a total of 58,037.549 tons. The clause on the face page of the Bs/L noted that ?°weight, measure, quality, quantity, condition, contents and value unknown?±. On 8 July, M/V ?°Amira?± arrived at the port of destination. On 14 July, the vessel completed the discharge of cargo and the relevant parties signed the Vessel??s Free of Cargo. The consignee entrusted CIQ Yangjiang to compute the weigh of cargo by draft. In the course of draft survey, the surveyor and the consignee had a dispute over the quantity of cargo with the Defendant. In order to commence the vessel??s voyage as soon as possible, the master had to accept the survey result by draft provided by CIQ Yangjiang. In the subject case, the Plaintiff was not qualified to act as a subject in the action. On the Bs/L in question, the consignee was ?°to order?± and the Plaintiff was merely a notifying party. It is Fengyuan Co. that negotiated with the Defendant about the quantity of discharged cargo in the course of discharging. It was known that the Plaintiff was merely an agent for foreign trade and was not able to file the claim against the Defendant as a qualified plaintiff. The cargo in question was not in short at the port of discharge. After M/V ?°Amira?± completed the discharge of cargo, the relevant parties signed the Vessel??s Free of Cargo indicating that the cargo in all holds had been discharged. As the carrier, the Defendant had stated on the Bs/L that it did not know the weight and quantity. After the cargo onboard the vessel had been discharged, the carrier should be deemed to have fulfilled the obligation for delivery. With regard to the cargo shortage alleged by the consignee, because CIQ Yangjiang did not follow relevant procedures strictly in the course of draft survey, the conclusion drawn therefrom could not serve as the evidence to ascertain the quantity of discharged cargo. Moreover, the survey of the quantity of discharged cargo at the port of discharge was conducted by measuring the draft. Even if the element that CIQ Yangjiang did not follow relevant procedures strictly is not taken into consideration, the allowable range of deviation for weight by draft is 0.5% according to the provisions of Article 3 of the Rules for the Weight Survey of Import and Export Commodities, the industrial standard of the People??s Republic of China for inspection of import and export commodities. The Defendant need not be liable for the cargo shortage within the said range of deviation. A big number of leading cases tried by Chinese courts also demonstrate that the carrier need not be liable for the cargo shortage within the allowable range of deviation for weight by draft. In the subject case, if the deviation of weight by draft is within the range of 0.5% of 58,037.549 tons (290.187 tons), the Defendant should not be liable for the deviation. It is apparently unreasonable for the Plaintiff to claim against the Defendant on the ground that the weight of the cargo by draft was 377.549 tons less than the quantity stated on the Bs/L. To sum up the above, the litigation requests filed by the Plaintiff are groundless and should be dismissed by the court. 


The Defendant provided the following evidence within the time limit for evidence adduction; 1. the Vessel??s Free of Cargo; 2. the Letter of Protest issued by Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm on behalf of the shipowner of M/V ?°Amira?± to the Plaintiff and CIQ Yangjinag; 3. the industrial standard of the People??s Republic of China for inspection of import and export commodities, the Rules for the Weight Survey of Import and Export Commodities ¨C Weight by Draft; 4. the duplicates of the Civil Judgment (2002) GHFCZ No. 303 and the Civil Judgment (2003) GHFCZ No. 342 ruled by this court and the Civil Judgment (2003) YGFMSZZ No. 35 ruled by the Guandong Higher People??s Court. 


Upon the application by the Plaintiff, this court went to CIQ Yangjiang to collect the duplicates (certified copies) of the two L/C and Collection / Payment forms No. AB1005807/05 and AB1005800/05 issued by Bank of China. 


After examinations the collegiate bench adopts the evidence since the parties has no objection to the evidence No. 1, 2, 4, 10 and 11 provided by the Plaintiff and the evidence No. 1 provided by the Defendant. The Defendant has no objection to the authenticity of the evidence No. 12 provided by the Plaintiff but it holds that the Plaintiff did not file the application for investigation and collection of evidence within the stipulated time limit for evidence adduction. After examinations, the Plaintiff has applied for extension of evidence adduction within the time limit for evidence adduction and is approved by the collegiate bench so the Plaintiff applies for investigation and collection of evidence within the time limit for evidence adduction and has not violated the legal provisions. The collegiate bench affirms the evidence No. 12. The Defendant has no objection to the authenticity and legitimacy of the evidence No. 3 but has objection to its relevance. The evidence No. 3 is a written Protest for Short Loaded Cargo Quantity issued by the master of M/V ?°Amira?±. The content thereof and the evidence No. 4 can verify each other and has connection with the facts in the subject case so the evidence No. 3 should be adopted. The evidence No. 5 provided by the Plaintiff is the Inspection Certificate (of Weight by Draft) produced by CIQ Yangjiang which is a statutory authority of China to inspect quality and quantity of import commodities. CIQ Yangjiang has relevant survey qualification and the Inspection Certificate produced thereby gives an account of the course and basis of the survey. CIQ Yangjiang also replies to the inquiry filed by the party without contradiction and inappropriateness. The Defendant has objection to the said Inspection Certificate but did not provide contrary evidence to rebut it so the collegiate bench takes the view that the Inspection Certificate produced by CIQ Yangjiang is legitimate and valid and should be adopted. The evidence No. 6, 7 and 8 provided by the Plaintiff is true to the originals. The Defendant has no objection to the authenticity of the said evidence. After examinations, the forms of the aforesaid evidence are in compliance with the legal provisions and relevant to the facts in the subject case so they can serve as the evidence to affirm the facts in the subject case. The parties have no objection to the authenticity and legitimacy of the evidence No. 9 provided by the Plaintiff and the evidence No. 4 provided by the Defendant but these two pieces of evidence have no connection with the facts in the subject case so they are not adopted by the collegiate bench. The Plaintiff has no objection to the authenticity and legitimacy of the evidence No. 2 and 3 which relate to the facts in the subject case so they are adopted by the collegiate bench. 


After examinations the collegiate bench affirms the relevant facts as follows according to the evidence for the subject case and in consideration of cross-examinations and court hearing. 


On 1 June 2005, the Plaintiff concluded a soybean contract (contract No.: 2005DOCX/LM94006MR) with CHS Inc. and agreed that the Plaintiff purchased 55,000 tons of Brazilian soybeans from CHS Inc. and CHS Inc. may choose 10% more or less with the packing in bulk. According to the price of future soybean futures at the Chicago Board of Trade in July 2005, the price was USD 1.78 per bushel, cost plus freight, CNFFO, to a safe berth in Yangjing Port, China. When the Plaintiff opened the L/C at the provisional price, a minimum of USD 50 should be added to each ton as down deposit for future trade. The provisional price was based on the price on the day before L/C opening at the Chicago Board of Trade. Hence, the provisional price = USD 1.78/bushel + the price on L/C opening at the Chicago Board of Trade * USD 36.7433 bushel/ton + USD 50/ton and so forth. 


From 3 to 5 June, M/V ?°Amira?± owned by the Defendant loaded the aforesaid cargo as purchased by the Plaintiff at Paranagua Port. On 5 June, Agencia Maritima Cargonave Ltda (?°Agencia Ltda?±) signed two sets (3 copies for each) of Bs/L (No. 01 and 02) on behalf of the master Emmanouil Tsouros. The two sets of Bs/L both stated the following information: the shipper: CHS Inc. (CHS Do Brasil ¨C Comercio Exportacao De Graos Ltda); the consignee: to order; the notifying party: the Plaintiff; carrying vessel: M/V ?°Amira?±; port of loading: Paranagua; port of discharge: Yangjiang, China; goods: Brazilian soybeans in bulk; gross weight of the soybeans under the B/L No. 01: 29,018.774 tons; gross weight of the soybeans under the B/L No. 02: 29,018.775 tons (both were printed). The standard clause ?°weight, measure, quality, quantity, condition, contents and value unknown?± had been pre-printed on the face page of the Bs/L before the weight of cargo was printed thereon. As the surveyor of the Shipowner's Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association, AC Brazil Marine Surveyors surveyed the aforesaid cargo and the draft survey document stated that the weight of cargo loaded onboard M/V ?°Amira?± was 57,780.7 tons. The Draft Survey Report produced by SGS Do Brasil Ltda stated that the quantity of cargo on the shore was 58,037.549 tons and the weight by draft was 57,776.128 tons having a difference of 261.421 tons. On 6 June, the master of M/V ?°Amira?± stated on the Protest to the shipper CHS Inc., ?°the total quantity of cargo 58,037.549 MT as presented on the Mate??s Receipt and Statement of Fact does not coincide with figures calculated by the Messrs UK P&I Club Surveyors / SGS / and Ship??s Draft Survey. The total shortage cargo is 256,849 MT and I was therefore compelled to sign the Mate??s Receipt and Statement of Fact under protest reserving all rights as far as quantity is concerned.?± On 21 June, Bank of China accepted the payments under the Ls/C NO. LC1004186/05 and LC1004187/05 with the respective amounts of USD 9,650,483.48 and USD 9,650,483.81 (the Bs/L were numbered 01 and 02). The Plaintiff obtained the two sets of original Bs/L which were endorsed by the shipper CHS Inc. and the Plaintiff only. On 30 June, CHS Inc. issued two final commercial invoices to the Plaintiff. The two invoices stated the following information: name of commodity: Brazilian soybeans produced in 2005; unit price: USD 332.56/ton; price term: CFR Yangjiang Port, Guangdong Province, China; weights of cargo stated thereon: 29,018.774 tons and 29,018.775 tons; the respective amounts: USD 9,650,483.48 and USD 9,650,483.81. 


On 3 June 2005, the Plaintiff and Fengyuan Co. took out insurance to cover cargo transportation for the aforesaid cargo with Ping An Insurance Co. which issued an insurance policy to the Plaintiff and Fengyuan Co. The insurance policy agreed on the following information: insured cargo: 55,000 tons of Brazilian cargo in bulk; insured amount: USD 18,150,000; carrying vessel: M/V ?°Amira?± from Paranagua Port, Brazil to Baofeng Wharf, Yangjiang, China; coverage: all risks in ocean shipping with additional war risk and strike risk; the absolute excess of cargo shortage and other insurance incidents: respectively 0.3% of the value of entire consignment of cargo; the quantity of cargo and the day of shipment are subject to the Bs/L; the Plaintiff is the first beneficiary of the insurance policy. On 7 June, Fengyuan Co. paid RMB 174,366.57 as the premium to Ping An Insurance Co. On 15 June, Ping An Insurance Co. issued the Endorsements and stated the following information: upon the application of the insured and Fengyuan Co., the company agrees to change the cargo under the said insurance policy from 55,000 tons to 58,037.649 tons at 0000hrs on 7 June 2005 and the insured amount increases USD 1,002,424.17 so that the valid insured amount is changed to USD 19,152,424.17; the insured shall pay USD 1,102.67 to increase the premium; the absolute excess of cargo shortage and other insurance incidents is changed to 0.3% of the insured amount; the other conditions stated on the insurance policy remain unchanged. In the court hearing, the Plaintiff and the Defendant mutually confirmed that the insurance rate for the aforesaid cargo was 0.11%. 


On 9 July, M/V ?°Amira?± carried the aforesaid cargo to Yangjiang Port and commenced the discharge. Baofeng Co. accepted the discharged cargo. On 14 July, M/V ?°Amira?± completed the discharge of cargo. Baofeng Co. issued the Quantity Confirmation of the soybeans?? entry to the warehouse from M/V ?°Amira?± on the same day, alleging that the entry of the soybeans discharged from the said vessel to the warehouse totally weighed 57,551.31 tons. On 20 July, CIQ Yangjiang produced the Inspection Certificate (of Weight by Draft) which stated that ?°having checked the ship??s draft and elements at time before and after discharging and basing on the ship??s displacement scale provide on board said vessel with necessary corrections made, we computed the weight of the discharged cargo in bulk to be 57,669 MT.?± On 23 July, the Plaintiff paid the import duty in respective amounts of RMB 2,398,782.30 and RMB 2,398,782.36 and the import VAT in respective amounts of RMB 10,706,565 and RMB 10,706,565.27 according to the weights of cargo stated on the Bs/L No. 01 and 02. According to the import duty invoices and the import VAT invoices produced by CIQ Yangjiang on 23 July, the exchange rate between US dollars and RMB yuan was 1:8.2765.


Article 3 of the Rules for the Weight Survey of Import and Export Commodities, the industrial standard of China for inspection of import and export commodities, provides that in the course of computation of weight by draft, there are many elements to affect the accuracy of computation; if the preparation of record of the ship has an accuracy of 0.1%, the accuracy of computation of weight by draft may be within 0.5%. 


On 13 July, the Plaintiff applied to this court for preservation of evidence and arrest of M/V ?°Amira?± for the dispute in question. On 14 July, this court rendered the Civil Ruling (2005) GHFBZ No. 66 to collect duplicates or copies of the certificate for ownership of M/V ?°Amira?±, its nationality certificate, the Draft Survey Report at the port of loading, the quality report, other records on computation of weight of cargo, the Protest for Short Loaded Cargo Quantity at the port of loading, the relevant records to the weight of cargo, the Mate??s Receipt and the Stowage Plan. The said Ruling had been served and executed. On the same day, this court rendered the Civil Ruling (2005) GHFBZ No. 67 to approve the Plaintiff??s application for arresting M/V ?°Amira?±. Before this court served the legal instrument for ship arrest to Yangjiang Maritime Safety Administration and other assistant authorities to execute the ship arrest, the Plaintiff applied for lifting the ship arrest on the ground of the valid and reliable security provided by the shipowner and the demise charterer of M/V ?°Amira?±. This court approved the Plaintiff??s application for lifting the ship arrest and did not execute the Ruling for ship arrest. The Plaintiff paid RMB 5,000 for the application fees respectively for preservation of property and preservation of evidence and RMB 2,000 for the execution fee in a total of RMB 14,000. 


In the court hearing, both of the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to apply the law of the People??s Republic of China to settle the dispute. 


All members of the collegiate bench take the view that the subject case is a foreign-related case of dispute over the contract of carriage of goods by sea. Both of the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to apply the law of the People??s Republic of China to settle the dispute. According to Article 269 of the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China (?°the Maritime Code?±) which provides that the parties to a contract may choose the law applicable to such contract, the law of People??s Republic of China applies to the subject case. 


The cargo in question was carried by M/V ?°Amira?± owned by the Defendant. Agencia Ltda signed the Bs/L on behalf of the master. According to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 72 of the Maritime Code, the Bs/L should be deemed to be signed by the master on behalf of the carrier. The Defendant also confirmed that it was the carrier of the cargo in question so the Defendant was the issuer of the Bs/L in question and the carrier of the cargo. The Bs/L in question signed by the Defendant was the order Bs/L. The Plaintiff concluded the sales contract of soybeans in its name with CHS Inc. and made the cargo payment to obtain the Bs/L for customs declaration. The Bs/L had been held by the Plaintiff through the legitimate endorsement by CHS Inc. so the Plaintiff was the final legitimate holder of the Bs/L in question. The contract of carriage of goods by sea as proven by the Bs/L existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The relationships of rights and obligations between both parties are to be determined according to the provisions of the Bs/L. The Plaintiff is entitled to claim against the Defendant in its own name. It has no factual and legal basis for the Defendant to defend that the Plaintiff is merely an agent for foreign trade and is not qualified to act as a subject in the action. Such defense should not be supported. 


As the carrier, the Defendant should deliver the cargo to the consignee according to the statement of the Bs/L. The standard clause pre-printed on the face page of the Bs/L states that the weight is unknown but the agent of the Defendant printed specific weights of cargo when signing the Bs/L. It is obviously contradictory. According to the provisions of Articles 75 and 77 of the Maritime Code, if the B/L contains the weight of goods with respect to which the carrier or the other person issuing the B/L on his behalf has the knowledge or reasonable grounds to suspect that such weight does not accurately represent the goods actually received, the carrier or such other person may make a note in the B/L specifying those inaccuracies, the grounds for suspicion or the lack of reasonable means of checking. The Defendant did not specify the ground that it did not know the weight with the provision of relevant evidence so the weights of cargo stated on the Bs/L had final evidential effect upon the Plaintiff, the third party in addition to the carrier. The result of draft survey of the cargo in question at the port of discharge was 377.549 tons less than weight stated on the B/L. The said tonnage had exceeded 0.5%, the allowable range of deviation for weight by draft. Furthermore, when the Defendant signed the Bs/L, it had known the cargo was 256.849 tons in short but it still signed the Bs/L based on the weight of 58,037.549 tons. The Defendant therefore was at fault and should be liable for the indemnity. The computation of weight by draft is one of the statutory methods for CIQ to inspect the loading and discharge weights of cargo. CIQ Yangjiang has made necessary correction to the deviation at the time of draft survey. Although the allowable range of deviation for weight by draft is 0.5%, the cargo shortage in question has exceeded the allowable range. It demonstrates that there is some unreasonableness when the Defendant stated the weights of cargo. The Defendant did not adduce evidence to prove the value of deviation in the reasonable computation and the quantity in the unreasonable computation for the cargo shortage. Hence, the Defendant shall bear the unfavorable consequences due to its inability to adduce evidence. Because the 0.5% allowable range of deviation for weight by draft does not mean that the computation of the weight of cargo in question has a deviation of 0.5%. Moreover, the said 0.5% shall be reasonable deviation of computation. The unreasonable element that the carrier has known the cargo shortage at the time of loading which exceeds the allowable range of 0.5% shall not be sophisticated for trial. Hence, the Defendant shall not claim to be exempted from the liability of indemnification for the 0.5% shortage of cargo stated on the Bs/L. The Defendant shall indemnify the Plaintiff according to the quantity of cargo stated on the Bs/L minus by the shortage of 377.549 tons in the actually delivered quantity to the Plaintiff. 


According to the first and second paragraphs of Article 55 of the Maritime Code, the amount of indemnity for the loss of the goods shall be calculated on the basis of the actual value of the goods so lost and the actual value shall be the value of the goods at the time of shipment plus insurance and freight. The price of the cargo in question is subject to the price stated on the final commercial invoices. The cost plus freight is USD 332.56 per ton. The Plaintiff and the Defendant mutually confirm that the cargo??s insurance rate is 0.11%. Hence, the actual value of the cargo in question = USD 332.93/ton + USD 332.56 * the insurance rate 0.11% = USD 332.93/ton. The cargo is 377.549 tons in short so the loss sustained by the Plaintiff due to the cargo shortage amounts to USD 125,697.39 by USD 332.93/ton multiplying 377.549 tons. According to the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of Article 55 of the Maritime Code, the loss of shortage for which the Defendant shall indemnify the Plaintiff shall be calculated on the basis of the actual value. The overpaid tax as requested by the Plaintiff for indemnity by the Defendant has no casual connection with the short discharged cargo by the Defendant. According to the provisions of Article 63 of the Maritime Code, the Plaintiff may request the Customs to refund the tax that was over-levied. It is legally groundless for the Plaintiff to request the Defendant to indemnify it for the import duty and import VAT overpaid to the Customs in an amount of USD 20,089.23 so such request should not be supported. The Inspection Certificate produced by CIQ Yangjiang on 20 July 2005 confirms the shortage of cargo in question. The Defendant shall indemnify the Plaintiff for the loss resulting from the cargo shortage. The Plaintiff is entitled to claim the interest accrued on the USD 125,697.39 loss of cargo against the Defendant if the indemnity is not paid in due course. Such interest shall be calculated from 20 July 2005 to the day of payment confirmed by this Judgment with the principal being the RMB yuan exchanged from USD 125,697.39 at the time of the Defendant??s indemnification according to the RMB loan rate for enterprises?? flowing cash set by the People??s Bank of China for the same period. 


In summary, according to the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of Article 55 of the Maritime Code, the judgment is rendered as follows: 


The Defendant Pyramid Navigation Co., E.S.A. shall indemnify the Plaintiff Poly Technologies, Inc. for the loss of cargo shortage in an amount of USD 125,697.39 and the interest accrued thereon (calculated from 20 July 2005 to the day of payment confirmed by this Judgment; the US dollars shall be exchanged into RMB at the exchange rate on the actual day of payment according to the RMB loan rate for enterprises?? flowing cash set by the People??s Bank of China for the same period.) 


With regard to the RMB 15,935 case acceptance fee, the Plaintiff shall bear RMB 2,444 and the Defendant shall bear RMB 13,691. The RMB 5,000 application fee for preservation of property and the RMB 2,000 execution fee shall be borne by the Plaintiff. The RMB 5,000 application fee for preservation of evidence, the RMB 2,000 execution fee and the RMB 500 fee for collection and investigation of evidence shall be borne by the Defendant. The aforesaid fees have been pre-paid by the Plaintiff and this court will not refund them. The Defendant shall pay the aforesaid fees to the Plaintiff. 


The aforesaid obligation for payment shall be effected within ten days from the effective day of this Judgment. 


In case of any objection to this Judgment, the statement of appeal may be submitted before this court by the Plaintiff within 15 days, the Defendant within 30 days upon the service of this Judgment, and the copies thereof shall be submitted in the number of the opposite parties. The appeal court is Guangdong Higher People??s Court. 


Presiding Judge: Yu Xiaohan

Judge: Wen Jing

Acting Judge: Du Junyang


(Official Seal of Guangzhou Maritime Court)

19 December 2005

The certified copy of the original 

Clerk: Zhang Rong




The translation is provided by Wang Jing & CO.