Cargo Shortage Claims
In the agricultural sector it is very common to use a shore scale (conveyor belt, etc.) to establish the cargo weight. Usually if the cargo is loaded by the shore scale at the load port, it should be discharged by the shore scale at the disport. The issue arises if the cargo is loaded by shore scale and then at discharge port quantity is ascertained by draft surveys. In such cases a joint hatch sealing survey (at load and discharge ports) may assist in defending cargo shortage claims.
Members are recommended to refer to club’s article (https://bit. ly/2vHAZzR) on ‘paper shortages’ for other preventative measures that can be taken to avoid such quantity related claims.
CASE STUDIES
Case study 1 (Highlights the importance of good segregation)
Problem: A ship fully laden with soya beans, originally intended for discharge in China, was delayed for approximately five months at a South American loading terminal. Cargo was on board the ship for over 150 days and underwent severe heating, resulting in visible discolouration and reduction in oil and protein quality.
Action: Daily cargo temperatures were obtained throughout the delay and weekly sampling of the cargo surface was performed for the determination of moisture content. The crew also undertook appropriate ventilation. A salvage sale of the cargo was arranged with the cargo being discharged at a closer port than that originally intended.
Conclusion: The cargo was segregated into three visual categories during discharge. Each category was sampled
representatively and the results of sample analysis were used to provide an accurate idea of quality. This ensured that the subsequent claim could be assessed on the best possible analytic evidence.
Case study 2 (Highlights the importance of properly characterising alleged preshipment problems)
Problem: A seven-hold bulk carrier fully laden with soya beans from South America arrived for discharge at a Mediterranean port. The authorities rejected the cargo due to the presence of fungal sclerotia, which are considered a phytosanitary threat in some countries. The ship was delayed at anchorage for approximately three months, leading to deterioration and subsequent mould growth in the upper layers of the cargo.
Action: Inspection and sampling of the cargo surface was undertaken jointly. Sampling of the cargo using a pneumatic sampler assisted in assessing the condition of the cargo deeper in the stow. The samples indicated that the damage was limited to the surface. Spot samples of the fungal sclerotia were obtained and DNA analysis confirmed the fungal species. Samples were taken according to FOSFA rules in order to estimate the extent of the damaged cargo segregated from the surface.
Conclusion: The authorities rejected the cargo because of the phytosanitary regulation. As a result of identifying the fungal species, the cargo was able to be resold in a European port where this fungus is not considered a phytosanitary threat.
Case study 3 (Highlights the importance of cargo temperature monitoring and appropriate ventilation)
Problem: A ship partly loaded a cargo of soya beans at a South
American port. Due to lack of cargo, the ship was shifted to anchorage for several weeks. On return to port, elevated cargo temperatures were measured in one of the slack holds due to load additional cargo.
Action: The master was advised not to load additional cargo. The ship sailed to the intended discharge port and was appropriately ventilated throughout the voyage. The cargo in the affected hold was rerouted to an alternative discharge port during the voyage in order to reduce the on-board storage time.
Conclusion: The cargo was discharged without complaint or any sign of condensation damage on the cargo surface despite the elevated cargo temperature and relatively cooler external temperature experienced during the voyage.
CLAIMS ADVICE
There are a number of additional protective measures that members may take in order to mitigate against the risks of carrying soya bean cargo beyond the technical loss prevention advice already set out in this bulletin. Such measures may include careful drafting of charterparty clauses; however, much will depend on the relative bargaining position of the parties.
Some of the relevant provisions will include those relating to the fumigation and cleaning of cargo holds. The cleaning of cargo holds prior to loading is essential given the nature of soya bean cargo as a foodstuff. Fumigation requirements can, however, pose problems for the master, not just for safety reasons, but also because it may prevent him from ventilating the cargo during the voyage. If the master does not ventilate the cargo, he is open to criticism if the cargo surface is degraded on arrival at the discharge port. It is understood that the Chinese courts in particular have previously found owners liable for cargo damages that they
The Report • June 2019 • Issue 88 | 59
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
