Seamen's Foreign Technical Services Co., Ltd. of China Wuhan Changjiang River Shipping Co., Ltd. vs. SOTO GRANDE SHIPPING CORP., S. A., PANAMA
(Dispute over Shipping Articles)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Seamen's Foreign Technical Services Co., Ltd. of China Wuhan Changjiang River Shipping Co., Ltd.@#
Legal representative: Zhang Jishan, Manager of the company@#
Represented by: Zhuang Yinseng, attorney of Shanghai Maritime Law Firm@#
Ni Zhiqiang, attorney of Shanghai Maritime Law Firm@#
Defendant: SOTO GRANDE SHIPPING CORP., S. A., PANAMA@#
Legal representative: Alan A·Mccarthy, Director president of the company@#
The plaintiff, Seamen's Foreign Technical Services Co., Ltd. of China Wuhan Changjiang River Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Changjiang”), has filed a claim at Shanghai Maritime Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) against SOTO GRANDE SHIPPING CORP., S. A., PANAMA (hereinafter referred to as “SOTO”) concerning their dispute over shipping articles.@#
The shipping articles concluded between Changjiang and SOTO provide that, Changjiang shall send 25 shipmen including the captain to leave for SOTO's M.V. POMONA ship with Panama nationality to work for one year. During the employment period, SOTO shall remit 20,833 USD of the shipmen's wages to Changjiang's account on the 5th of each month. Changjiang began to implement the articles on January 14, 1985. Until September 16, 1985, SOTO did not fully remit the above said amount of wages in accordance with the articles except for a small amount of expenses paid by it. The amount of wages in arrears was 225,283.05 USD, thus the lives of the 25 shipmen as well as their families were impacted. Therefore, Changjiang applied to the Court on September 16, 1985 for distraining the M.V. POMONA ship, and ordering SOTO to provide 200,000 USD of guaranty until the ship was sold off to pay off the debts. This was the Court's opinion: Changjiang's application conformed to the condition for distraining the ship and was with reasonable basis. Thus the Court ruled that the ship must be distrained on September 28 of the same year.@#
．．．．．．

中国武汉长江轮船公司海员对外技术服务公司诉巴拿马索达·格莱特航运有限公司船员雇用合同纠纷案@#
@#
原告：中国武汉长江轮船公司海员对外技术服务公司@#
法定代表人：张纪善，中国武汉长江轮船公司海员对外技术服务公司经理@#
委托代理人：庄胤森，上海海事律师事务所律师@#
委托代理人：倪志强，上海海事律师事务所律师@#
被告：巴拿马索达·格莱特航运有限公司（ＳＯＴＯ　ＧＲＡＮＤＥ　ＳＨＩＰＰＩＮＧ　ＣＯＲＰ．，Ｓ．Ａ．，ＰＡＮＡＭＡ）@#
法定代表人：阿兰·埃·麦卡锡（ＡＬＡＮ　Ａ·ＭＣＣＡＲＴＨＹ），巴拿马索达·格特航运有限公司董事长（ＤＩＲＥＣＴＯＲ　ＰＲＥＳＩＤＥＮＴ　ＯＦ　ＳＯＴＯＧＲＡＮＤＥ　ＳＨＩＰＰＩＮＧ　ＣＯＲＰ．，Ｓ．Ａ．，ＰＡＮＡＭＡ）@#
原告中国武汉长江轮船公司海员对外技术服务公司因与被告巴拿马索达·格莱特航运有限公司船员雇用合同纠纷案，向上海海事法院提起诉讼。@#
原告与被告签订的船员雇用合同规定，由原告派出包括船长在内的２５名船员前往属被告所有的巴拿马籍“帕莫娜”轮（Ｍ．Ｖ．ＰＯＮＯＮＡ）工作一年；在受雇用期间，被告于每月５日将２０８３３美元的船员工资汇入原告帐户。原告于１９８５年１月１４日开始履行该合同，迄至１９８５年９月１６日止，被告除支付了少量费用外，未按合同汇足上述工资额，拖欠工资计２２５２８３．０５美元，致使２５名船员及其家属的生活受到影响。据此，原告于１９８５年９月１６日向上海海事法院申请扣押“帕莫娜”轮，责令被告提供２０万美元的担保，直至变卖该轮以清偿其债务。上海海事法院审查认为：原告申请符合扣押船舶的条件并有合理的依据，于同年９月２８日裁定扣押该轮。@#
１９８５年１０月３日，　原告向上海海事法院提起诉讼请求，除上述拖欠船员工资外，还包括向该轮供应燃料费、扣船申请费、律师费用、违约金及有关费用的利息等，共计为２５９６３６．０３美元。@#
由于被告不提供担保，为维护当事人的合法权益，上海海事法院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法（试行）》第九十三条第三款“人民法院对查封、扣押的物品不宜长期保存的，可以变卖保存价款”的规定，裁定变卖“帕莫娜”轮。@#
１９８５年１０月１８日公开拍卖“帕莫娜”轮，　保存售得之价款４３万美元。同时，上海海事法院公告该轮所有债权人在３０日内申请债权登记。@#
被告未在法定期限内提出答辩。经上海海事法院两次合法传唤，被告均未提出任何正当理由而拒不到庭，遂于１９８７年２月２５日对本案进行审理。@#
上海海事法院经审理查明：原告与被告于１９８４年１２月１７日在上海签订一份船员雇用合同。１９８５年１月１４日，原告按照合同规定派出２５名船员登上“帕莫娜”轮，开始履行合同。船员在受雇期间，接受被告的指派和调遣，按照合同各司其职，为被告提供劳务．被告对原告提供的劳务未表示过任何异议．期间，原告仅于同年２月１日、６月１２日两次收到被告寄汇的２１４５５美元。同年８月２１日、９月２２日被告两次供应船员伙食费８４０．８美元。@#
．．．．．．