中国国际贸易促进委员会海事仲裁委员会
调解书
(1983)外仲字第××号
申诉人：船舶所有人×××
委托代理人：×××
裤诉人：租船人×××
申诉入船舶所有人×××的代理×××（以下简称船方），就 船方与被诉人租船人×××（以下简称租方）因“康卡?雷索卢特”轮在阿根廷布兰卡港装载散装小麦所产生的空舱费发生争议，根据双方于1978年12月12日在美国新泽西州利堡签订的“康卡? 雷索卢特”轮船租船合同仲裁条款的规定，向海事仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请，要求租方赔偿2 555公吨的空舱费65 535. 75美元，并加计利息。
根据仲裁程序暂行规则的规定，本会主席受船方和租方的委托，分别指定邵××和高××为仲裁员。两位仲截员共同推选孙××为首席仲裁员，组成仲裁庭审理本案。
一、案情
“康”轮按租船合同规定起租后，根据租方的安排于1979年1月12日抵达第一个装货港阿根廷利亚孔斯蒂图西翁港，船长书面提出要求装载33 750长吨%，伸缩300长吨，使船舶的海水吃 水达到34英尺6英寸。
“康”轮在该港装载20 145公吨后，于1979年1月18日抵达 第二个装货港布兰卡港。1月19日租方代理书面通知船长：根据布兰卡港务当局的通知，布兰卡5/6号泊位水深不超过33寒尺。 同日，“康”轮船长答复租方代理，仍然要求装载33 750长吨，装足 吃水34英尺6英寸，即在布兰卡港再装14 145公吨。
根据装货记录，“康”轮在布兰卡港实际装载11 575公吨。根据船舶吃水检验报告，“康”轮装货完毕后的平均吃水为32英尺 9. 3英寸，如装足吃水34英尺6英寸，尚应加装2 515长吨，即 2 555公吨。船方根据该报告向租方索赔2 555公吨的空舱费。
船方认为，布兰卡港水深下降并非涉及所有泊位，根据租船合 同第九条规定，租方有权选择布兰卡港的第二或第三个泊位；也可以在开敞码头或在锚地用驳船装货，但租方并未这祥做，也没有采取其他方法装足租船合同规定的34英尺6英寸的吃水或船长根据租船合同要求的数量，因此租方违背租船合同的规定，应当支付空舱费。船方还提出，根据一般的法律原则，租方应当保证所指定的装卸泊位具备适当的条件。
租方提出，布兰卡港装粮泊位只有5/6号和7/8号。5/6 号泊位因挖泥，最大吃水为33英尺，不能满足“康”轮吃水的要求，7/8 号泊位水深超过34英尺6英寸，但仅限于船长200来；的船舶可以靠泊，前“康”轮全长203米，不可能停靠7/8号泊位。再说当时在布兰卡港还没有加载装置，不可能采用船方所述的其他方法 装足货物。因此租方认为产生空舱的原因纯属港口水深临时下降 造成的，是人力不可抗拒的，租方不应负责。
ニ、，仲裁庭的初步意见
租船合同第二条规定：船舶在到达蒙特维的亚或阿根廷的位 于布兰卡以南的一个港口后，按照租船人或其代理人的指示在下述港口受载整船的散装重粮和/或大豆和/或高粱。最后或唯一的装港如是布兰卡港则装载34 000公吨；如是布宜诺斯艾利斯则装载30 000公吨，均伸缩5%，由船方选择。
第三条規定：……发货人实际备妥可开装时，船长应以书面声 明可以安全受载的数量。……第四条规定：最后装港如果是布兰卡港，运费每公吨25. 65美元，布兰卡港的水深是34英尺6英寸。
布兰卡港是租船合同规定的供选择的两个最后装货港之一。 “康”轮船长要求在该港装足33 750长吨，是符合租船合同规定 的。
双方在签订租船合同吋，“康”轮在布兰卡港唯一可以装货的 5/6号泊位的水深可以满足“康”轮吃水的要求和船长提出的装货 数量。但由于1979年1月8日布兰卡港务局因挖泥宣布该泊位水 深不超过33英尺，致使“康”轮不能按原定安排装货。这是双方在 签订租船合同时所不能预见的，也是双方所不能控制的。租方并已证明，布兰卡港水深超过34英尺6英寸的7/8号泊位，“康”轮因 超过允许的长度而不能停靠，而且也没有在商业上可行的其它措 施可以满足“康”轮的装货数童的要求。
在上述情況下，仲裁庭认为本案租船合同订立以后装货港水 深变化的风险由谁负担的问题，合同并无规定，也不存在公认的、明确的国际惯例。
三、调解结果
仲裁庭根据仲裁程序暂行规则第十九条的规定在双方当事人 的同意下进行了调解。双方当事人本着互谅互让的精神，一致接受了仲裁庭提出的下列调解建议：
（一）租方支付船方原索赔空舱费金额的50%，即32 767. 88 美元；（二）租方支付船方自1979年1月31日至1983年6月30为止的利息(按年息7%计算)10 1:30. 76美元；（三）上述两项的总额为42 898. 64美元，租方于1983年6月 30日以前付清。
本案仲裁手续费和开支共×××美元，曲粗方和船方各负担×××美元。
首席仲裁员孙××
仲裁员邵××
仲裁员高××
-九八三年六月十五日
（印章）
China Council for the Promotion International TradeMaritime Arbitration Commission ConciliationNo. FA(83)/ ××
Plaintiff …
Agents for Owners of the said vessel…
Defendant…
In accordance with the Arbitration Clause of the Voyage Charter of the m. v. “Konkar Resolute” signed at Fort Lee, New Jersey, USA on December 12J1978, … the plaintiff, …Agents for Owners of the said vessel, … (Shipowners)submitted to the Maritime Arbitration Commission for arbitration of a dispute with the defendant, … (Charterers) over deadfreight arising from the loading of wheat in bulk at Bahia Blanca, Argentine, claiming from the Charterers a sum of US $ 65 535. 75 representing dead- freight on 2 555 metric tons, plus interest.
Pursuant to the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Maritime Arbitration Commission, the Chairman of the Commission, upon authorization of the respective parties, appointed Mr Shao Shunyi and Mr Kao Chunlai as arbitrators. The two arbitrators jointly selected Mr Sun Juilung as presiding arbitrator, thus forming the Arbitration Tribunal to examine the case.
I . Facts
The vessel, upon being delivered to and placed at the disposal of the Charterers, arrived at the first loading port, Villa Constitution, Argentine on January 12,1979, when the Master requested in writing that the Charterers load a cargo of 33 750 long tons，300 long tons more or less，at a draft of 34′06″ salt water.
Having taken in a cargo of 20 145 metric tons at Villa Con- stitucion, the vessel arrived at Bahia Blanca, the second loading port, on January 18, 1979. The Charterers’ agents notified the Master in writing on the next day that the Port Authorities recommended a sailing draft of 33 feet from Pier No. 5/6. The Master ,however, reiterated his request for a full and complete cargo of 33 750 long tons, at a draft of 34′06″ sea water, i. e. an additional load of cargo of 14 145 metric tons at Bahia Blanca.
According to the records of loading, 11 575 metric tons of cargo were actually loaded on board the vessel at Bahia Blanca. The Report of ship’s Draft Survey showed that the mean draft after completion of loading was 32l 09. 3tf and were the draft of 34r 06f, to be reached an additional load of 2 515 long tons, equivalent to 2 555 metric tons should have been made. Based on this Report the Shipowners claimed from the charterers for deadfreight in respect of 2 555 metric tons.
The Shipowners submitted that the normal depth of water at Bahia Blanca was not available at all berths. The Charterers had the right, under Clause 9 of the Charter, to shift the vessel to a second or third loading berth at Bahia Blanca. Also, the vessel could have been fully loaded at an open pier or on roads by barges. However? the Charterers failed to do so nor did they resort to other methods cither to load the vessel up to the draft of 34′06″as stipulated in the Charter; or to load the amount of car- go properly requested by the Master in accordance with the Charter. This constituted a breach by them of the provisions of the Charter and they are, therefore, liable for deadfreight.
The Shipowners further, submitted that, according to the general rule of law, a Charterer should warrant the suitability of a designated loading or discharging berth.
On the other hand, the Charterers submitted that only two berths i. e. Pier Nos. 5/6 and. 7/8 were available for loading grains at Bahia, Blanca. Due to; dredging operations, the maximum draft at Pier No. 5/6 was 33 feet salt water which could not meetthe vessels requirement. Whilst the draft at Pier No. 7/ 8 exceeded 34′ 06″, it was confined to vessels with a maximum overall length within 200 meters.' With an overall length of 203 meters the vessel in question could not of course berth alongside Pier No. 7/8. Besides, no topping off facilities were available at the time at Bahia Blanca, and it was impossible to use other methods as suggested by the Shipowners to load the vessel up to the designated draft. Such being the case, the Charterers maintained that the deadfreight arose entirely as this result of a temporary drop of draft which was a force majeur, and for which the Charterers should not be liable.
Ⅱ. Tribunal’s Preliminary Opinion
Clause 2 of the Charter provides: The said Steamer… shall…after arrival at Montevideo or at an Argentine port, not south of Bahia Blanca…proceed as ordered by Charterers or their Agents to the under-mentioned ports or places and there receive from them a full and complete cargo of heavy grains and/or soyas and/or sorghums in bulk, 34 000 metric tons if last/sole port Bahia Blanca; 30 000 metric tons if last/sole port Buenos Aires, both 5% more or less at Owners’ option.
Clause 3 of the Charter provides: … When Shippers are actually ready to commence to load, the Master to declare in Writing the maximum quantity the vessel can safely carry…Clause 4 of the Charter provides: …Freight at the rate of US $ 25. 65 completing Bahia Blanca; Draft at Bahia Blanca 34′ 06" salt water.
Bahia Blanca was one of the two last loading ports in the Charterers’ option as provided for in the Charter. The Master’s request for a full load of 33 750 long tons was in conformity with the provisions of the Charter.
At the time of concluding the Charter by the parties, the depth of draft at Pier No. 5/6, the only berth available for the vessel at Bahia Blanca, was able to meet the requirement of the vessels draft and was sufficient to enable the quantity of cargo as requested by the Master to be loaded. But as a result of the dredging carried out at Bahia Bianca, the Port Authorities announced on January 8, 1979 that the draft at the above Pier was limited to 33 feet, thus making it impossible for the vessel to load cargo as originally arranged. This was unforseeable by and beyond the control of both parties at the time the Charter was concluded. Furthermore, the Charterers had shown that despite the fact that the draft at Pier No. 7/8 at Bahia Blanca exceeded 34′ 06″, the vessel could not berth alongside because of her excessive length, there being, at the same time, no other alternatives commercially practicable to meet the requirement of the vessel as regards quantity of cargo to be loaded.
In the light of the foregoing, the Tribunal comes to the view that there is neither any provision in the Charter nor any generally recognized and clearcut international practice as to who will bear the risk of the change of the draft at loading port after the concluding of the Charter in question.
Ⅲ. Result of Conciliation
In accordance with Article 19 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal endeavoured to settle the case by conciliation with the consent of both parties. And in the spirit of mutual understanding and accommadation, the parties have accepted the Tribunal’s following suggestions:
(1)That the Charterers pay the Shipowners a sum of US $32 767. 83 representing 50% of the original claim for dead- freight;(2)That the Charterers pay the Shipowners interest in sum of US $ 10 130. 76 from January 31, 1979 to June 30, 1983 calculated at 7% per annum; and(3)That the total of the aforesaid items amounting to US $ 42 898. 64 be paid by the Charterers to the Shipowners not later than June 30, 1983.
The arbitration fee and expenses for the present case total US $ -The Shipowners and the Charterers shall each pay US $…Umpire…(signed)
Arbitrator … (signed)
Arbitrator … (signed)
Maritime Arbitration Commission
(stamp)
Peking june 15, 1983
