《装卸时间与滞期费》第3章-装卸时间的起算-连载26

　　　　CHAPTER 3 第3章

　　　　Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算

　　Customs clearance 清关/结关

　　3.178 In London Arbitration 19/04, the tribunal had to consider an additional clause that provided, inter alia, that if the owners failed to obtain customs clearance within the six hours after tender of notice of readiness before laytime commenced, the notice of readiness was not to be considered valid. However, it went on to say that only if customs inspectors failed the vessel after an inspection would the vessel not be considered cleared. The tribunal found in the case in question that there was a delay in obtaining customs clearance, but this was not due to any fault on the part of the vessel and that, since there was no question of the vessel failing an inspection, the notice originally tendered was valid.

　　3.178在报道的2004年第19号案中，仲裁庭必须考虑其中一条附加条款，其中规定，如果在准备就绪通知书递交之后6小时之内，且装卸时间起算之前，船东未能获得海关许可，准备就绪通知书被视为无效。然而，它接着说，只有当海关检查员在检查后船舶没有通过，船舶才不被认为是清关。在该案，仲裁庭认定在获得海关许可方面发生延误，但这并不是船方的过错，因为这没有通过检查不是船舶的问题，原先递交的通知书是有效的。

　　Free pratique and quarantine 无线电免检和卫生检疫（证书）

　　3.179 These two terms are in one sense opposites in that a ship which is refused free pratique may have quarantine restrictions imposed upon her. Pratique is a permission or licence granted by the port medical authorities to a vessel upon arrival from a foreign port for her crew to go ashore and for local people to go on board. In The Eagle Valencia, Longmore LJ said this about “free pratique”:

　　The term “free pratique” is something of a term of art. It is defined in one maritime dictionary published online by Asia’s online Maritime Centre, and available on Google, as:

　　“official permission from the port health authorities that the ship is without infectious disease or plague and the crew is allowed to make physical contact with shore, otherwise the ship may be required to wait at quarantine anchorage for clearance.”

　　Cooke on Voyage Charters (3rd ed) 2007 page 384 para 15.117, cites the definition given by an American case in 1967:

　　“No vessel may communicate with the shore in a foreign port, in the sense of persons leaving the vessel or coming aboard the vessel or loading or unloading cargo or taking on stores, without prior permission of the shore authorities. The grant of this permission is usually under the authority of medical officers, the danger normally apprehended being contagious diseases among passengers or crew. The permission itself is generally called ‘pratique’ or ‘free pratique’.’’

　　If a ship fails to get pratique, either because of serious infectious illness on board or because she has arrived from a place where such illness is known to be rampant, then she may have quarantine restrictions imposed upon her. At most ports there is a quarantine anchorage to which the ship may be sent, usually in a more isolated part of the port. Traditionally, a ship in quarantine signifies this fact by flying a yellow flag (flag Q in the international alphabet of signal flags). Originally, quarantine was for 40 days, although nowadays some other period may be specified in the quarantine order.

　　3.179对一艘船舶来讲，这两个术语的意义恰好相反，也就是说，一艘被拒绝免检的船舶就必须接受检疫限制。检疫是港口卫生当局对一艘国外港口来船舶在达到时所发给的许可证或证书，目的是为了船员登陆和当地人员登轮。在The Eagle Valencia案，Longmore大法官谈及到‘无线电检疫（免检）’，说：

　　所谓‘无线电检疫（免检）’这一术语，多少有点艺术性。由亚洲在线海事中心网上出版的一本海事字典和谷歌在线上定义如下：

　　‘港口卫生当局签发的官方许可证，证实船舶没有传染性疾病或瘟疫并且允许船员与岸上进行实际接触联络，否则船舶可能需要在检疫锚地等待检查后放行。’

　　Cooke所著《程租合同》2007年（第3版）第384页，第15.117段，引述了1967年《美国案例汇编》中给出的定义：

　　在国外港口，没有岸方当局事先批准，任何船舶不得与岸上交往联络，某种意义上说，人员不得上下船舶，也不得进行装卸货作业或接受物料供应。此种许可证通常是由医疗卫生当局批准授发，通常是担心在旅客或船员之间有传染性疾病的危险。一般，这种许可证本身被称为‘免疫许可证’或‘无疫许可证’。

　　若一艘船舶未通过检疫，其原因要么是该轮上有严重的传染病，要么是她所离开的地方这种病很流行，这时，她就要受到检疫的限制。在许多港口都有一个隔离的区域作为检疫锚地，以便船舶可能驶抵。按照传统，接受检疫的船舶都挂黄旗（国际字母信号旗就是Q旗）表明这种情况。现在，虽然在检疫指示规则中可能规定了某些其他的期限，原来检疫的有效期为40天。

　　3.180 Where a quarantine restriction is placed upon a ship, she cannot be considered ready because the result of the restriction is that work is prevented and the charterers do not have unrestricted access. In Smith v. Dart & Son, a ship was chartered to carry oranges from Spain to England. She was, however, delayed on her approach voyage by very rough weather so that she was not ready to load, free of pratique, at the first load port by the cancelling date as required by the charter, with the result that the charterers cancelled the charter. The main argument before the court was whether the delay was excused by an exceptions clause in the charter relating to heavy weather. This argument was rejected, the court deciding that the requirement to arrive and be ready before the cancelling date was an absolute one. The charterers were therefore entitled to cancel. In that case, the ship was physically ready at the appropriate time but not free of pratique. It should, however, be noted that this was a specific requirement of the charter.

　　3.180当船舶受检疫限制时，她就不能被看作是已经准备就绪了，因为检疫限制的结果阻止了她进行作业，并且承租人也不能自由地支配她。在Smith v. Dart & Son案中，船舶被出租从西班牙到英国运输柑橘。然而，该轮在预备航次中由于恶劣天气造成延迟，于是她在租船合同规定的解约日在第一装港未能通过检疫，即是未做好装货准备，结果承租人就解除了合同。提交法院的主要争议是：在该租船合同中，恶劣天气造成的延迟是否归属除外条款之列？法庭否决了这一论点，判定：要求船舶在解约日前抵达并准备就绪是一项绝对的义务，因此，承租人有权解除合同。在这个案子中，当时该轮在实质上已准备就绪，只是未通过检疫。然而，应该注意的是，这是该租船合同的一项特殊要求。

　　3.181 In the Scottish case of John and James White v. The Steamship Winchester Co, the Winchester arrived to load a cargo, her previous port of call being Port Said. As a result, quarantine restrictions were placed upon her so that access to the ship was prevented. In the Court of Session, Lord Shand said:

　　The vessel would be an arrived ship in name only, but not in reality, so far as regarded the charterer, whose duty and obligation—the loading or unloading—should begin on arrival. The charterer might be quite ready to unload, or ready with a cargo waiting to load the vessel, but the disqualification of the ship would prevent this, and indeed, would lead to the ship being sent away from the place of loading or discharge. She would thus never be at the disposal of the charterer so as to enable him to fulfil his obligation.

　　3.181在苏格兰John and James White v. The Steamship Winch ester Co案， Winchester轮由于上一港口是埃及塞得港，结果当她抵达装港后，该轮将进行检疫限制，人员不能进出船舶。在苏格兰最高民事法庭，Shand勋爵说：

　　应该说，该轮仅仅算名义上的抵达，但实际上并不能算作抵达船，就有关承租人而言，他装货或卸货的责任和义务应在船舶抵达时开始。或许承租人已做好了卸货的充分准备，或者已做好了装货准备，但由于船舶未取得某种资格而不能进行，确实它导致船舶离开装货或卸货地点。在这种情况下，无论怎样也不能说承租人已经能够支配该轮来履行其义务。

　　3.182 The third of the early cases dealing with quarantine restrictions and the granting of free pratique, and perhaps the most difficult and unusual, is The Austin Friars. The case came before the High Court as part of a collision action. The facts were as follows. The Austin Friars had sailed from Constantinople in ballast on an approach voyage to Galatz and en route she collided with another steamship, causing her to put back to Constantinople for temporary repairs. After these were completed, she sailed again and arrived at Galatz at 11 p.m. on 10 October 1893. However, on arrival no one could board or leave until pratique was given after the ship had been visited by the port doctor and pronounced clear of infection. This occurred the following morning, but unfortunately the charter provided that the charterers could cancel the charter if the vessel was not ready by midnight on 10 October, which they did. In the collision action, therefore, the owners of the Austin Friars claimed, inter alia, damages from the other vessel for their losses arising out of the cancellation of the charter. The main issue in the case was whether the charterers were entitled to cancel, which in turn depended on whether the vessel was ready in time.

　　3.182 在The Austin Friars案，是第三个早期有关检疫限制和授予检疫证的案例，也许是最困难最不寻常的案例了。该案有关碰撞的那部分争议曾提交到高等法院。该案的案情是这样的：Austin Friars轮的预备航次是从土耳其君士坦丁堡（伊斯坦布尔）空放到罗马尼亚加拉茨港，在途中同另一艘船相撞，导致她又返回君士坦丁堡进行临时性修理。修理完后，该轮重新驶往加拉茨港，并于1893年10月10日晚上11时抵港。然而，抵达后，直到港口卫生部门检査并声明无感染后发给检疫证书，在此之前不允许任何人登船或离船。遗憾的是，该轮在第二天一早才得到检疫证书，而该轮的租船合同中规定：如果该轮未能在10月10日午夜前准备就绪，承租人就有权解除合同，而承租人实际上也真的这样做了。因此，Austin Friars轮在对碰撞起诉时，该轮的所有人向另外一艘责任船索赔的损失中包括了解除合同这一项。该案的主要争议是，承租人是否有权解除合同？而这取决于船舶是否按时准备就绪。

　　3.183 The case was decided by Sir Francis Jeune, the President of the PDA Division of the High Court. Having reviewed the two earlier cases, he said:

　　It was argued before me that the present is not a case of quarantine, nor in strictness is it. But there seems to me no distinction for this purpose between a medical officer in authority ordering a ship into quarantine, and his prohibiting access to her till he can examine into her conditions. In both cases a superior authority, in pursuance of sanitary regulations, disqualifies a ship from taking cargo on board. It was also argued that some charterparties (for example that in Smith v. Dart) add ‘‘free of pratique’’ to the words ‘‘ready to load’’. This, of course, shows that those who framed the charterparty doubted if it were sufficiently clear that readiness to load included the absence of sanitary disqualifications, but I do not think that the practice of adding these words has been so usual or so authoritative as to show such a doubt is well founded. I think, therefore, that the damages in this case must include damages by reason of the loss of the charterparty.

　　3.183该案由高等法院的海事庭庭长Francis Jeune爵士判决的。在回顾了前两个案例后，说道：

　　当前摆在我面前的争议，它既不是有关检疫的情况，也不是严格针对检疫的争议。但是，好像对我来说，在卫生部门的官员命令某轮进行检疫，与在他对船舶进行检查之前命令禁止登上该轮二者之间似乎没有什么区别。在这两种情况下，执行卫生检查规则的上级机关取消了船舶装货的资格。有人争论说，在有些租船合同（比如在Smith v. Dart案）中，在‘装货准备就绪’之前加上‘免疫’这一条件。当然，这表明签订租船合同的当事人怀疑，装货准备就绪是否已足够清楚地包括不存在卫生不合格的问题。但我并不认为，加上这些词语的做法已经是习以为常的或权威性的，以表明确已消除了这样的疑问。因此，我认为，本案中的损害赔偿必须包括取消租船合同造成的损害在内。

　　3.184 Although it does not appear to have influenced the decision, one factor why the Austin Friars was not ready to load was that, because of the port health restrictions, the master was unable to proceed ashore to give notice of readiness until after the charterers’ option to cancel had arisen. In The Delian Spirit, Lord Denning said of the Austin Friars decision that ‘‘It was a very special case’’ and did not warrant the proposition that notice of readiness was not valid without free pratique.

　　3.184尽管它看起来没有影响到对该案的判决，但Austin Friars之所以未做好装货准备的其中一个因素是因为该港卫生检查的限制，以致船长直到承租人选择解除合同之后仍无法登岸递交准备就绪通知书。在The Delian Spiri案，Denning 勋爵提到了Austin Friars—案的判决说，‘那是一种非常特殊的案例’，但对‘未取得免疫证书的准备就绪通知书是无效的’这一主张未置可否。

　　3.185 There is, however, a distinction between a vessel which has not yet obtained free pratique and one which has been refused clearance. In The Delian Spirit, Lord Denning also said:

　　I can understand that, if a ship is known to be infected by a disease such as to prevent her getting her pratique, she would not be ready to load or discharge. But if she has apparently a clean bill of health such that there is no reason to fear delay, then even though she has not been given her pratique, she is entitled to give notice of readiness, and laytime will begin to run.

　　At first instance in the same case, Donaldson J said:

　　It is an idle exercise to obtain free pratique before the time for loading unless it be required for ship’s purposes, and if it is a fact that it can be obtained at any time and without the possibility of delaying the loading, the mere fact that it has not been obtained does not prevent the ship from becoming an arrived ship.

　　3.185然而，一船舶还未获得检疫许可证与被拒绝通过检疫是有区别的。在The Delian Spirit案，Denning勋爵也说：

　　我可以这样认为，如果已知某轮受疾病的感染而不能获得检疫许可证书，她就不能算已做好了装货或卸货的准备。但是若该轮在卫生方面显然没有问题，她也就不必担心会产生延迟。这样，即使她尚未获得检疫证书，她亦有权递交准备就绪通知书，同时装卸时间也就开始起算。

　　同一案子在初审法院时，Donaldson法官曾说：

　　在装货开始前获得检疫许可证是一项例行手续，除非对该轮有此要求。而且，如果事实上该轮在任何时候都能获准免疫，并没有可能会对装货造成延迟的话，未取得检疫证书只是个事实问题，并不妨碍该轮成为抵达船。

　　3.186 In British ports, clearance is usually obtained in the form of a certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Health for the port upon a declaration being made by the master or medical officer, if one is carried, that no member of the crew or passenger is suffering from any notifiable disease. In the United States, a practice exists whereby certain ships, such as cruise liners, may obtain radio pratique by giving similar information by radio shortly before arrival.

　　3.186在英国各港，通常获得的通行证是在港务局长或卫生官员做出声明并由港口卫生部门签发的一份证书。得到这份证书，即表明船员或旅客没有患有任何须申报的疾病。在美国，该项检査只适用于某类船舶，比如定期旅游班轮，在她们抵达前，迅速通过无线电进行申报相关信息并获得检疫通过的许可。

　　3.187 As will be apparent from the above, the actual obtaining of free pratique is not now a requirement at common law before a ship can be considered ready. Nevertheless, it is common for charters to still contain the phrase ‘‘whether in free pratique or not’’ in conjunction with a readiness clause. Since this is not a requirement, the phrase is probably surplusage, at least where there is no impediment to free pratique being granted. It is doubtful whether the phrase would extend to allowing time to commence where pratique was actually refused or where there were grounds for believing that it would be at a later date.

　　3.187从以上的讨论中明显看出，实际上获得检疫证书并不是当前普通法对船舶是否准备就绪所要求的条件之一。尽管如此，目前租船合同中仍然普遍地将‘不论免疫与否’并入到准备就绪的条款之中。既然它不是一项必要条件，至少在没有检疫许可证书受阻的情况下这个短语也许就是多余的。如果免疫实际上遭到拒绝或者有理由相信它将在晚些时候才能被通过检疫时，这个短语是否将会拖延允许起算的时间，对于这一点是有疑问的。

　　3.188 The Voylayrules 1993 provide:

　　‘‘VESSEL BEING IN FREE PRATIQUE’’ and/or ‘‘HAVING BEEN ENTERED AT THE CUSTOM HOUSE’’ shall mean that the completion of these formalities shall not be a condition precedent to tendering notice of readiness, but any time lost by reason of the delay in the vessel’s completion of either of these formalities shall not count as laytime or time on demurrage.

　　3.188《1993年航次租船合同装卸时间解释规则》中规定：

　　‘船舱通过检疫’和/或‘已经报关’是指完成这些手续并不能作为递交准备就绪通知书的前提条件，但因船舶完成上述任一手续而发生延误导致的任何时间损失不计为装卸时间或滞期时间。

　　3.189 The Eagle Valencia, to which reference has already been made in relation to the meaning of “free pratique”, concerned the proper construction of Shell additional clause 22 in conjunction with a Shelltime 5 charter relating to customs clearance and free pratique. In relation to the latter, the court held that where the vessel was unable to berth, if free pratique had not been granted within six hours of tendering notice or when laytime would otherwise commence, the original notice became invalid, but if free pratique was granted later but before the vessel berthed, there was nothing to prevent the vessel from tendering a fresh notice. However, if free pratique could not be obtained at the anchorage and was only granted after the vessel berthed, the original notice was not to be invalid but in effect reinstated. For the purpose of a demurrage time bar (which was the main issue in the case) the owners had to have presented a valid notice of readiness timeously, which in this case they failed to do. 3.189在上文已经提到的The Eagle Valencia案，是关于‘免疫许可证书’的含义的争议，涉及到对Shell（壳牌程租合同）附加条款第22条准确的解释，并结合Shelltime5（壳牌期租合同）内有关清关和免疫许可证书条款的规定。在后者（Shelltime5），法院判决：在船舶不能靠泊的情况下，如果在准备就绪通知书递交之后6个小时之内或者装卸时间开始后，船舶还没有获得免疫许可证书，初始递交的通知书无效，但后来获得免疫证书且是在靠泊前，这并不妨碍船舶递交新的准备就绪通知书。然而，船舶在锚地不能够获得免疫证书并且只有在靠泊后才能获得，初始递交的通知书并不失效而是恢复效力。对于滞期费索赔时效（这是在案件的主要议题），船东必须及时提交有效的准备就绪通知书，在本案他们并没有能够做到。

　　3.190 In so far as the free pratique part of this definition is concerned, whilst it is true that obtaining free pratique is usually a formality and that the phrase ‘‘whether in free pratique or not’’ does not add anything, nevertheless where the parties have expressly required free pratique to be obtained prior to tendering notice of readiness, it must mean something. It is therefore suggested that unless the Voylayrules are specifically incorporated into the charter, an express requirement of free pratique would normally be a condition precedent.

　　3.190 至于这一定义中提到的通过检疫之事，的确，通常情况下，通过检疫是一项例行公事，而且‘不论通过检疫与否’这一短语并不能增加什么义务，尽管如此，双方当事人仍然在合同中明确要求在递交准备就绪通知书之前必须通过检疫，看来它还是有一定意义的。因此，大家的看法是，除非将《1993年航次租船合同装卸时间解释规则》特别并入租船合同中，否则，通常情况下，明确提出免疫要求应是一项前提条件。

　　3.191 However, it should be stressed that any such requirement must be clearly expressed. Thus in London Arbitration 9/98, the clause in question merely required the master to immediately protest in writing if free pratique was not granted promptly and that such protest be attached to any claim for demurrage. Rejecting the suggestion that the granting of free pratique was a condition precedent to a valid notice of readiness being given, the tribunal held it was merely a formality. They also relied on a dictum of Longmore J in The Petr Schmidt, where the judge said:

　　. . . in the absence of express wording, courts generally lean against constraint clauses as conditions precedent to liability.

　　3.191然而，应该强调的是，任何此类要求，必须清晰无误地表达出来。因此，在报道的伦敦仲裁1998年第9号案中，争议的条款仅仅要求船长在未能及时获得免疫证书时立即递交书面抗议书，而且在任何滞期费的索赔中要附上这一抗议书。在否决了获得免疫证书是递交有效的准备就绪通知书的先决条件的建议后，仲裁庭裁定这仅是一种正常手续。他们也依据Longmore法官在The Petr Schmidt案中的附带意见，即是：

　　……在没有明确的措词的情况下，法院一般都会倾向反对把约束条款看做履行义务的先决条件。

　　3.192 Two further illustrations of the working of free pratique provisions are provided by London Arbitration 1/00 and 11/00. In the earlier case, the charter in question required the ship to be ‘‘ALWAYS IN FREE PRATIQUE’’ after arrival when notice of readiness was tendered. Free pratique was not in fact granted until some two days after notice of readiness was tendered, after she shifted to an inner anchorage. The owners argued on the basis of The Delian Spirit that, as there was no reason for free pratique not to be granted, time should run on the basis of the notice that was given. The tribunal, however, held that there was an explicit requirement that the vessel be in free pratique when notice was given.

　　3.192有关免疫条款的作用在两个报道的伦敦仲裁2000年第1号和第11号案中得到进一步的解释。在第1个案例，争议的租船合同规定要求船舶在抵达后递交准备就绪通知书时‘通过检疫并总是处于无疫状态’。事实上，在递交准备就绪通知书一些天后，船舶还未通过检疫，后来船舶转移到内锚地等待。船东争议说依据The Delian Spirit案，这没有理由证明船舶不会通过检疫，装卸时间应该根据通知书递交的时间起算。然而，仲裁庭裁定，在递交通知书时，明确规定要求船舶通过检疫。

　　3.193 In the second case, the charter in question provided that notice of readiness could be tendered whether in free pratique or not. It subsequently transpired that four crew members did not have valid vaccination certificates, delaying the granting of free pratique for 13 days. The tribunal held that the owners were responsible for the delay because the provision that allowed for notice to be presented on the basis of the vessel being in free pratique or not was predicated on the basis that this would be a mere formality, which it clearly was not.

　　3.193在第2个案例，有关租船合同规定：无论是否通过检疫，皆可递交准备就绪通知书。后来发现，4名船员并没有持有有效的接种证书，延误船舶获得免疫证书达13天之久。仲裁庭裁决船东对此延迟负责，因为，允许递交准备就绪通知书条款是基于船舶能够通过检疫，而并不能依据这仅是简单的手续而已，而这显然不是这样。

　　3.194 In The Bow Cedar the High Court considered the free pratique provisions of the BPvoy 4 form of charter, holding that laytime commenced when free pratique was granted where this was more than six hours after tender of notice of readiness and no protest about the delay in granting free pratique had been issued by the master. In London Arbitration 11/08, the tribunal held that free pratique was a condition precedent to presenting notice of readiness but that, where it had not been obtained the notice took effect 12 hours later, and that acceptance of the defective notice by the shippers did not waive the original requirement.

　　3.194在The Bow Cedar案，高院认真探讨了BPvoy4格式范本（英国石油公司程租合同）免疫证书条款，并判定，在通过检疫之时开始起算装卸时间，这已是在准备就绪通知书递交之后超过6个小时了，并且就延迟获得免疫证书船长也没有提出任何抗议。在报道的伦敦仲裁2008年第11号案，仲裁庭裁定免疫证书是递交准备就绪通知书的先决条件，而是因为船舶在通知书生效后12的小时还没有获得免疫证书，所以托运人接受有缺陷的通知书并不是放弃原先的条件要求。

　　3.195 Whilst the grant of free pratique usually refers to medical clearance, at some ports it does have a wider meaning. Thus, in The Freijo, the arbitrator found:

　　At Lourenco Marques free pratique is granted only when a vessel has reached the limits of the inner anchorage, at which time Health, Customs and Immigration Authorities are brought on board by launch by the local agent. According to local ruling, free pratique covers clearance by all Authorities including immigration. A vessel is ajudged in free pratique only after compliance with the usual inward formalities by the Authorities concerned. This is at variance with custom in other parts of the world but it was the custom in the former territories of Mozambique and Angola.

　　3.195虽然通过检疫通常被认为是指卫生许可证，但在某些港口它却具有广泛的意义。比如，在The Freijo案，仲裁员认定：

　　在莫桑比克Lourenco Marques马普托港，只有在船舶抵达内锚地，这时卫生、海关以及移民局当局随当地代理的交通艇登轮时，即可获准免检。按照当地的规定，检疫证书涵盖了全部有关权力机构的许可证，包括移民局。裁决：船舶只有按照有关当局的指示办理了正常的进港手续，才算检疫通过。这一点同世界上其他港口的习惯是不同的，但这是莫桑比克和安哥拉以前的领地上的习惯做法。

　　3.196 In The Aello, another subsidiary matter considered related to the issue of a police permit which was required before people from shore could come on board. However, this was held to be a mere formality, especially as the Aello had arrived from another Argentinian port.

　　3.196 在The Aello案，还要考虑一个有关附带事项是：要求从岸上登轮的人员要拿到警察局的许可证。然而，这一点仅被判定是一项手续而已，而且特别是对Aello轮而言，是从阿根廷的另一个港口来的船舶。

　　

　　《装卸时间与滞期费》购买链接（点击可购买）

　　海运圈聚焦专栏作者 魏长庚船长（微信号CaptWei）