Woodtrans Navigation Corporation & Sanwai Navigation S. A. v. Angang Group International Economic Trade Co. –The Retrial Case of Disputes over the Delivery of Goods without Bill of Lading in Carriage of Goods by Sea
(Announcement No.3 [2002] of the Supreme Court of the PRC)@#
@#
@#
@#
(Civil Judgment No.6 [2000] of the Supreme Court of the PRC)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Applicant for retrial: Woodtrans Navigation Corporation, Panama
Address: 53rd Street Urbanization Obarrio Torre Bancosur, 16th Floor, Panama, the Republic of Panama@#
Legal representative: Mr, Tuibg Ngie-Kiang, chairman of the board of directors of this corporation@#
Agent: Tong Mei, a lawyer of Haitong Law Firm@#
Agent: Yang Wengui, a lawyer of Haitong Law Firm@#
Applicant for retrial: Sanwai Navigation S. A., Panama
Address: No.276 Guangfunan Road, 6th Floor, Taipei, China@#
Legal representative: Lin Qingchi, chairman of the board of directors@#
Agent: Tong Mei, a lawyer of Haitong Law Firm@#
Agent: Yang Wengui, a lawyer of Haitong Law Firm@#
Appellee of second instance: The International Economic Trade Company of Angang Group@#
Address: No.322 Nan Zhonghua Road, Anshan City, Liaoning Province, PRC@#
Legal representative: Liu Jie, chairman of the board of directors of the company@#
Agent: Wang Pengnan, a professor from the Law School of Dalian Maritime University@#
Woodtrans Navigation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Woodtrans Corp.) and Sanwai Navigation S. A. (hereinafter referred to as Sanwai S. A.) refused to accept Civil Judgment No. 39 (Final) [1997], which was made by the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province upon the case of disputes between the above-mentioned two companies and the International Economic Trade Company of Angang Group (hereinafter referred to as Angang Co.) over the delivery of goods without a bill of lading in the carriage of goods by sea, thus they filed an application with this court for retrial. On December 82,000 this court ruled that this court shall be entitled to review this case on the grounds that the original judgment was wrong in the affirmation of facts and the law applied in this case was inappropriate. In accordance with the law, this court organized a collegiate bench and heard this case in public. Lin Qingchi (the legal representative of Sanwai Navigation S. A.), Tong Mei (the agent of Woodtran Corp. and Sanwai S. A.) and Wang Pengnan (the agent of Angang Co.) appeared in court for hearing. Now the trial of this case has been completed.@#
It was decided in the original judgment that on February 20, 1995 Angang Co. and Hong Kong Qianjin Yi Co. (hereinafter referred to as Qianjin Yi Co.) signed a business contract, in which it was stipulated that Angang Co. should supply Qianjin Yi Co. with 5000 tons of hot-roll steel plate at a price of US$295 per ton, FOB, by L/C. On June 30 of the same year, “Unison Praise” – a ship owned by Woodtrans Co. – took over the goods covered by the above-mentioned contract at the Port of Dalian. Having shipped the goods, Morpoti Navigation Co. (hereinafter referred to as Morpoti Co.), the carrier, issued a set of original bill of lading in triplicate to Angang Co. In the bill of lading, it was clearly stated that the shipper was Angang Co.; the consignee should make the payment upon the instructions of Sadi Branch of Bumi Daya in Djakarta，a private bank; the port of loading was the Port of Dalian; the port of discharge was Djakarta and the weight of the goods was 5,520 tons. On July 21 “Unison Praise” arrived at the Port of Djakarta. After the goods had been discharged but failing to receive the original bill of lading, the carrier delivered the goods to the informed party that was explicitly stated in the bill of lading. As soon as Angang Co. received the clean shipped bill of lading, it transferred to the issuing bank the full set of documents (including the original bill of lading and the commercial invoices) through the Bank of China for settlement of exchange. It was marked on the commercial invoice that the total value of the goods was US$1,520,878.40. The above-mentioned documents were transferred to the issuing bank on July 8, but the full set of documents was returned because there were some inaccuracies in the L/C. On August 20 Angang Co. received the returned bill of lading and the invoice.@#
．．．．．．

富春航业股份有限公司、胜惟航业股份有限公司与鞍钢集团国际经济贸易公司海上运输无单放货纠纷再审案@#
法公布（２００２第３号）@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院@#
民事判决书@#
〔２０００〕交提字第６号@#
@#
再审申请人：富春航业股份有限公司（WOODTRAN SNAV－IGATION CORPORATION，PANAMA）。住所地：巴拿马共和国巴拿马城５３大街阿贝泽新奥巴里奥托里班可瑟１６楼（53RD STREET URBANIZACION OBARRIO TORRE BANCOSUR， 16TH FLOOR，PANAMA，REPUBLIC OF PANAMA）。@#
法定代表人：张义强（Mr．Tiong Ngie－kiang），该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：童梅，海通律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：杨文贵，海通律师事务所律师。@#
再审申请人：胜惟航业股份有限公司（SANWAI　NAVIGA－TIONS.　A.，PANAMA）。@#
住所地：中国台北市光复南路２７６号６楼。@#
法定代表人：林清池，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：童梅，海通律师事务所律师。@#
委托代理人：杨文贵，海通律师事务所律师。@#
原审被上诉人：鞍钢集团国际经济贸易公司。住所地：中华人民共和国辽宁省鞍山市南中华路３２２号。@#
法定代表人：刘王介，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：汪鹏南，大连海事大学法学院教授。@#
富春航业有限公司（以下简称富春公司）、胜惟航业股份有限公司（以下简称胜惟公司）因与鞍钢集团国际经济贸易公司（以下简称鞍钢公司）海上货物运输无单放货纠纷一案，不服辽宁省高级人民法院〔１９９７〕辽经终字第３９号民事判决，向本院提出再审申请。本院于２０００年１０月８日以原审判决认定事实错误，适用法律不当为由，裁定本案由本院进行提审。本院依法组成合议庭，公开开庭审理了本案。胜惟公司的法定代表人林清池、富春公司和胜惟公司的委托代理人童梅、鞍钢公司的委托代理人汪鹏南到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理完毕。@#
原审认定：１９９５年２月２０日，鞍钢公司与香港千金一公司（以下简称千金一）签订了买卖合同，鞍钢公司供给千金－热轧卷板５０００吨，每吨２９５美元，ＦＯＢ价，信用证结算。同年６月３０日，富春公司所属的“盛扬”轮（ＵＮＩＳＯＮ　ＰＲＡＩＳＥ）在大连港受载了上述合同项下的货物。货物装船后，承运人莫帕提航运公司（以下简称莫帕提公司）签发了一式三份正本提单交给了鞍钢公司。该提单载明：托运人为鞍钢公司，收货人根据雅加达ＢＵＭＩ　ＤＡＹＡ私人银行ＳＡＩＤ支行指示，装货港为大连，卸货港为雅加达、货物重量５１５５．５２０吨。７月２１日，“盛扬”轮抵雅加达港，货物卸船后，承运方未收到正本提单即将货物交给了提单上列明的通知方。鞍钢公司接到签发的已装船清洁提单，即通过中国银行鞍山分行向开证行转交包括正本提单、商业发票等在内的全套单证予以结汇。商业发票载明货物总价值为１，５２０，８７８．４０美元。上述单据于７月８日转到开证行，因信用证出现不符点开证行将全套单证返回，鞍钢公司于８月２０日收到返回的提单和发票。@#
富春公司是承运船舶“盛扬”轮的登记船东，大连海事法院扣押的“ＵＮＩＳＯＮ　ＧＲＥＡＴ”轮是“盛扬”轮的姊妹船，为富春公司所有。１９９６年４月１６日，富春公司将“ＵＮＩＳＯＮ　ＧＲＥＡＴ”轮卖给胜惟公司，胜惟公司将该轮改名为ＳＡＮ　ＷＡＩ”轮。经巴拿马共和国公共登记后证实ＵＮＩＳＯＮ　ＧＲＥＡＴ”轮船东对该轮未予注销登记，该轮所有人仍为富春公司。@#
@#
大连海事法院官理认为：自承运人莫帕提公司签发提草并将货物交给富春公司所属的“盛扬”轮承运时起，富春公司便具有了法定的实际承运人的法律地位。提单依法是海上货物运输合同的证明，是所载货物的物权凭证，是承运人保证据以交付货物的单证。在托运人持有提单的情况下，承运人与提单持有人之间权利义务关系，应依括提单的规定确定。根据法律规定，凭正本提单交付货物是承运人的法定责任，依据《中华人民共和国海商法》（以下简称海商法）第六十一条的规定，凭正本提单交付货物也是实际承运人的责任。在期租的情况下，海商法第一百三十六条虽赋予承租人就船舶的营运向船长发出指示的权利，但本案承运人以承租人的名义向船长发出的不凭正本提单放货的指示，不仅超出了承租人的合法权利，而且也违反了法律规范承运人、实际承运人凭正本提单交货的强制性义务。富春公司明知凭正本提单交货是自己的强制性义务，仍坚持无正本提单放货，是明知故意的违法行为，依法不能享有提单中关于免责和责任限制的权利，应承担鞍钢公司全部损失的民事赔偿责任。同时大连海事法院还认为，“ＳＡＮ　ＷＡＩ”轮挂巴拿马旗经营。根据海商法第二百七十条的规定，对“ＳＡＮ　ＷＡＩ”轮（原ＵＮＩＳＯＮＧＲＥＡＴ轮）被扣押时所有权的确认，应依据巴拿马的法律。根据巴拿马海商法第一千零八十三条第一款的规定，船舶所有权的转让只能在公共登记局登记后，才能对抗第三人。该法第一千零八十九条又规定，在任何情况下，只能在公共登记机关登记后，所有权的转移才能对抗第三人。第三人虽从富春公司处买得“ＵＮＩＳＯＮ　ＧＲＥＡＴ”轮，但在大连海事法院扣押该船时，富春公司并未在巴拿马公共登记局办理该船的所有权转移手续，故该轮在被法院实施扣押时，仍属富春公司所有。第三人胜惟公司以其为该轮合法船东向法院提出的异议不能成立。据此，判决富春公司赔偿鞍钢公司的货款损失人民币１２，７００，０００元，并按月息１０．９８％支付该款项自１９９５年８月２０日起至给付之日止的利息；驳回第三人胜惟公司主张“ＳＡＮ　ＷＡＩ”轮所有权，要求鞍钢公司承担错误扣船的诉讼请求。@#
．．．．．．