2017-05-26
2751 【关键词】:合同 货差 索赔 5‰TRADE ALLOWANCE
众所周知，水尺检量（draft survey）是一种通过装卸前后船舶水尺的变化及进行多种修正后来计算船上货物量的重要手段，它也是散货计量最常见的方法。水尺检量的过程虽不算复杂，但可影响结果的因素却非常多。其计算公式、方法及对应的船方各种修正，对一个船上干到大副的人来说应该不会出错；即使出错也较容易发现和纠正，这类计算错误，对家也不会反对修改。但对于那些能影响到货量计算，存在争议且事后又无法举证的，务必保留必要的证据。
在说影响因素之前，先看一下在装港的水尺报告，如下：
从以上不难发现影响最终货量的主要因素有船舶吃水，船方修正，水密度，船存燃油压载水淡水等变量。需要指出的是，很多人包括有些商检人员认为船舶常数会影响到货量计算，其实是错误的。船舶常数（CONSTANT）只会影响到船舶最大装货量，并不影响同一个港卸了多少货的计算。
再来一份卸港的水尺报告：
那么针对船舶吃水，船方修正，水密度，船存燃油压载水淡水等变量，需要注意哪些地方呢？简单介绍如下：
1、水尺读取
在读取至少六面吃水的同时，平时还需要维护保养使水尺标志清晰可见；如果在夜间读取，需要充足的照明；如果在港内因天气或涌浪等原因，导致读数困难的情况下，一定要多次读取，然后取平均值减小误差，同时做好记录，包括照片存档，证明涌浪，天气等外界影响导致可能水尺不准，这点非常重要！在查看水尺的时候停止一切装卸货，及排压载水等操作。
当然了关于这点，与商检人员必要的沟通技巧是必须的。
2、船方修正
保持前后吃水，左右倾斜等各种修正，需有经船级社认可的装载手册在船。这个如果计算错误了，属于低级错误；当然了事后如果发现了，也能改正回来。
3、水密度
港口水密度的测量关系重大，千万不能大意不经测量就直接取1.025或1.020什么的直接计算。在进港前可查《进港指南》及询问代理告之最新的水密度情况。船上则必须配备有合格证书的水密度计（hydrometer）,最好也配备备用的；平时需做好校验工作以比对准确度问题。在取样的时候，不能为了方便，只在生活区取；需取不同位置，也就是船艏船中船尾都得取，还得取不同深度的水样进行综合比对取一个平均值。
4、船存燃油压载水淡水
燃油淡水等比较容易测量；压载水因量比较大，平时要做好记录，尤其是压载舱到底压了多少水，不能太依赖sounding table 的数据；很可能这些船厂数据不准。在读水尺的时候，杜绝进行压载水操作。当然了也有一些通过对测深管造假等非正规渠道来人为造成测量读数出现偏差，这是非法的，不在此讨论。
那么如果水尺读数，水密度测量，压载水存量等等与岸方的检验员或商检人员不一致的情况下，那么船方又该如何做呢？那就是第一时间通知所有相关方，并递交PROTECT。如果在装港，在事情未处理前，应该想办法在大副收据加上备注并拒绝签发任何清洁大副收据及任何清洁提单。如果需授权代理签发提单，则应该在授权书上加上类似的备注“Without head Owners’ writtenconfirmation, you are not allowed to issue/release any clean Bill of Lading.” 以保护船东利益。如果在卸港，在事情未处理之前，则应该拒绝签任何短货索赔的申明。
做好了这些基本工作，那么现在来分析一下期租和程租下各自的需要注意的地方及应对卸港短货索赔的基本方法。
为了更容易明白，现举一个实例。某轮在2015年以NPYE46格式，签订一个TCT合同，去执行一个南美装粮航次，租家安排到阿根廷装大豆到地中海卸。
众所周知，阿根廷装粮，如果不出现非常大的争议，基本上都是以岸方数据为准。为了避免出现短货索赔，到港前就让船长修改并发了如下授权书给代理：
Dear Sirs,
I here with authorize you to sign all Bills of Lading issued at this port on my behalf subject to the following terms andconditons:
1. Bills of Lading are to be signed only at time of suffender of corresponding Mate’s Rceipt(s) signed by the Master or Chief Officer of the vessel and in strict accordance with allterms conditons and exceptions of the governing Charter Party in force.
2. Bill of Lading areissued in strictly accordance with Mate’s Receipt(s).
3. All Bills of Lading to state: FOR MASTER AS PER AUTHORITY.
4. That Bills of Lading bear the date on which the loading of the cargo concerned was completed under no circumstances does this authority cover Bills of Lading that are dated earlier or later than the date of completion of loading.
5. That the said Bills of Lading conform in all other respects with all instructions you may received from the Owners.
6. Bills of Lading are not to be released until they have been reviewed by COSCO(H.K.) SHIPPING CO.,LTDand may only be released with their written permission.
7. No Bill of Lading may be issued clean for cargo on deck. Bs/L issued for cargo on deck must bear the following remarks: Carried on deck at Shipper’s risk without responsibility or liability of the carrier for loss or damage howsoever caused.
This authorization is valid for the present call of my vessel at this port only. It may be withdrawn or amended at any time andmay not be assigned to any other party. Any Bills of Lading signed by you whichdo not comply with the above conditons will have been signed without my authority and therefore fraudulent.
如果将来租家代理没经过船东最终同意而签发了清洁提单，那么租家违约。由于租家违约，那么船东有权索赔损失。
接着找租家代理要DRAFT B/L，并发如下邮件给租家：
Thanks for Charterers’ last, but uptillnow, Owners never received any draft Bs/L.
If there is discrepancy for cargo qtty loaded between vessel’s draft survey and shore weight figure, and Charterers orshipper need to issue Mate’s Receipts & Bs/L base shore weight figure, Eventhough there are some wording such as quantity, quality unknown showing on Bs/L,There is still potential risk of claim may arising in discharge port for cargoshortage.
A pre-loading survey has been carried outat loading port on the intended cargo of grain, and the Master and chief officer had to exercise their best judgment of a responsible for the cargo qttyloaded. The Master have to clause the Mate’s Receipt(s) of the cargo qttydiscrepancy if occurred finally.
On the other hand, It’s common ground that the Master, when he was asked for signed Mate’s receipt(s), was under a duty to his employer, the ship Owners, to record the apparent condition accurately, So that if he failed to do so he was in breach of that term of his employment.
This is commercial way to protect both inadvance, Otherwise Charterers may contend that why Owners not require them toprovide LOI for this discrepancy in advance after clean Bs/L weresigned/released, And Charterers may refuse to provide by then.
Hope Charterers could fully understandboth position, and they will be happy to provide their LOI for this discrepancies; but if no any discrepancy, needless to say that this will beclosed.
先给租家打预防针，说明可能出现岸方数据和船方水尺数不一致的情况，船长到时候按职责需在大副收据上添加备注什么的；如果租家要求签发清洁大副收据及清洁提单，需提供保函。当然了，这类保函一般租家不会出，面对皮包公司这类保函和废纸一张没有区别，这是另外一个话题。
在装货前，我们让船长先发邮件问租家，如果出现争议，到时候如何签发大副收据。收到租家如下指示：
Att. Master,
In case of discrepancy between shore figures weight and ship side, please sign the matesreceipt with usual remarks (such as "quality and quantity unknown tomaster"), at a later stage please issue a letter of protest describing allthe details of the discrepancy.
最后装完货出来，船方水尺数为48,969.150吨，岸上数为49,090.89吨，差121.74吨。我们继续要求租家提供保函，双方随后在扯皮，租家也一直没提供保函：
Thanks for Charterers’ last, just like Voltaire said: I will stand by you regardless.
Ownersdisapprove of what the Charterers say, but Owners will defend to the death theCharterers’ rights to say it.
As per theCharterers’ request, Master sign the Mate’s receipt(s) base shore weightfigures timely to avoid any delay;
And now hisvessel is downriver with eta Recalada o/a am 23rd/Oct.
Charterersplease advise the disport or intention for Master’s reference.
TrustCharterers well aware that Master and Owners render their good cooperation, dothe needful to protect both interests by now.
当然了，在英国普通法下，租家给的提单AsPresented，不管是Clean还是别的船东都得签。因此非常有必要在签这类清洁提单之前收到租家的清晰明确的指示。
最后在其中一个卸港，我们收到如下短货索赔邮件:
收到这个之后，马上给租家发了如下邮件：Owners aresurprised to receive below from Charterers' agent.
Trust thecharterers may recall all exchanges in respect of cargo qtty discrepancies thisissue.
Owners wishto remind that in accordance with charterparty clause 91, which provided asfollowing:
…The Mastershall sign the Bills of Lading or, in trade to Japan only, Waybills for cargoas presented in conformity with Mate's receipts. However, as long as theCharterers have fulfilled their financial obligations to Owners, Owners toauthorize the Charterers / sub-charterers or their agents to sign Bills ofLading or Waybills on behalf of the Master, with the Owners' prior writtenauthority, always in conformity with Mate's receipts.
All Bills ofLading or Waybills shall be without prejudice to this Charter Party and theCharterers shall indemnify the Owners against all consequences or liabilitieswhich may arise from any inconsistency between this Charter Party and any Billsof Lading or Waybills signed by the Charterers or by the Master at theirrequest…
Now, TrustCharterers well aware this illegal issuing Bs/L without any clause which willcause their breach.
And Charterersare responsible for and obligated to indemnify the Owners for all consequencesof lost/damages thereby.
On the otherhand, The Charterers refuse to provide their LOI for cargo qtty discrepancydespite of Owners' strong demands.
Meanwhile,the charterers and their agent issue Clean Bills of lading which were notconformity with Mate's receipt(s) by themselves, which also cause their breachthereby.
Furthermore,the charterers and their agent also not follow the Master's authorizationletter to sign/release Bs/L. As per the Master's authorization letter, OriginalBs/L will be not allowed to issue/release until review by COSCO(H.K.) Shippingand get confirmation.
Owners wellaware that if there is discrepancy for cargo qtty loaded between vessel’s draftsurvey and shore weight figure, and Charterers or shipper need to issue Mate’sReceipts & Bs/L base shore weight figure, Even though there are somewording such as quantity, quality unknown showing on Bs/L ,There is stillpotential risk of claim may arising in discharge port for cargo shortage.
Apre-loading survey has been carried out at loading port on the intended cargoof grain, and the Master and chief officer had to exercise their best judgmentof a responsible for the cargo qtty loaded. The Master have to clause theMate’s Receipt(s) of the cargo qtty discrepancy if occurred finally.But regretthat the Charterers and their agent ignore all and issue/release clean Bills ofLading by themselves, Therefore the charterers should hold whole responsible forthis and indemnity the Owners for whatsoever claims/damages therefrom.
By now, It'sclear that the draft survey figure is correct basis the alleged shortage claimfrom the receivers.
If the charterers may argue this indemnityand no willing to settle this claim by themselves with receivers directly, Thecharterers please refer to London Arbitration 13/08-(2008) 753 LMLN 4.
在London Arbitration13/08-(2008) 753 LMLN 4案中，法官认为船长有权利在大副收据上添加批注，但租家代理没有按照授权，私自签发了和大副收据不一致的提单，租家得赔偿船东损失。法官解释如下：
The tribunal would reject the charterers’ submission that no award should be made at the present stage. The Inter-Club Agreement did not apply in the circumstances ofthe case. The relevant contracts of carriage were plainly not authorised by thecharter: indeed, they were issued in clear breach of it. The provision inparagraph 2, that the Agreement should apply “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other provision of the charterparty” could not be read as overriding in some way the express and carefully inserted provisions of clauses8 and 61. For an incorporated document to have that effect much clearerprovisions would be required. The Inter-Club Agreement was really a rough andready way of cutting across potential arguments about liability for cargoclaims in the ordinary run of things, but it was not intended to deal with specific requirements as to eg remarks on bills of lading such as appear here.The parties could not have intended that it should apply to a situation such as the present.
Accordingly,the owners were entitled to an appropriate declaration as to the charterers’liability to indemnify them.
最终此短货索赔不了了之，应该是租家自己去处理了。该租家为NIDERA，一家个人感觉非常专业，有良好声誉的租家。
可能有人会问，如果租家不给船上清晰明确的指示呢？没有关系，依据NYPE合同第11条如下：
Thatthe Charterers shall furnish the Captain from time to time with all requisiteinstructions and sailing directions, in writing…
因此如果租家不给船长指示，那么租家违约，如果有耽误租家必须自己承担。
可能也有疑问，如果租家不给指示，船长坚持不签清洁大副收据的话，租家是否有权利OFF HIRE 呢？答案是否定的。
参海牙维斯比公约: Hague/Hague-Visby rules, Article 3(3):
No Master is bound to sign a bill of lading which he reasonably believes does not accurately represent the goods actually loaded...
如果租家指示船长按岸上数据签发清洁大副收据及提单，那么到时候因签发了清洁大副收据及清洁提单给船东造成了损失，比如在卸港的短货索赔，依据英国法下赋予船东的默示索赔权，船东可以找租家索赔损失。
关于此默示索赔权，可参阅之前的《浅析期租合同下船东默示索赔权》。
另一方面，关于TheInter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement，个人认为关于此类短货在自己能处理的情况下，尽量少把这些案子交给P&I Club去处理。这些所谓的短货索赔很难界定，P&I Club也不会花很大的精力去帮你找各种证据来抗辩，相反会依据Inter-Club去处理争议, 基本上和租家50%/50%。然后自己要么乖乖付钱，要么在来年被涨保费。
结合NYPE 格式合同第8条，个人建议碰到此类争议，尽量去要求租家给指示；而不是船东自己反客为主，弄不好船东到头来把责任转到自己身上上来，租家很可能反过来找船东索赔损失。
二、在程租（VC）情况下
在程租下，船方依然要做好水尺计算。有胆大的船东为了多收运费，在出现船方与岸方数据不一致的时候，签岸方较大的大副收据及提单，事后通过各种手段又调整回来，避免在卸港出现短货风险。但这种做法风险非常大，参 SHIPOWNERS 如下解释：
It is important to note that signing a bill of lading which contains a representation as to quantity which the Master knows or has good reason to suspect is incorrect could lead to criminal and/or civil penaltiesfor the Master/carrier and may jeopardise Club cover.
另一家P & I Club 解释如下：
The carrier should be aware that signing B/L oraccepting LOI where the B/L figures are factually incorrect could lead tocriminal penalties, be unenforceable in a court of law on the grounds of fraudulentmisrepresentation and may also jeopardize the P&I Club cover.
因此如果有差异，船长非常有必要提出抗议，要不可能构成欺诈犯罪，保赔协会不保的严重情况。
在程租情况下，没有地方找租家责任了。在提单责任下，船东有责任和义务按照提单上的数据交货。如果在卸港发生短货了，船东该如何应对索赔？先来看看几个判例：
1、 The Carlisle case
In The Carlisle, the court held that COGSAPrecludes implying a customary trade allowance into the contract of carriage,stating:
A custom that lessens or might lessen thecarrier’s liability under COGSA patently cannot be implied…
It remains, therefore, only to considerwhether enforcement of the customary trade allowance of 0.5% does present sucha conflict. We believe that it manifestly does. The carrier’s principalargument is that it is “ grossly unreasonable or absurd” to require 100%correspondence between the quantity loaded and that delivered, because of “ theinherent qualities of crude oil” and the lack of technology to measure thequantities of oil with precision… COGSA takes into account the apparently undisputed fact that for some types of cargo it will not be possible for thecarrier to deliver all of the cargo it received for carriage. COGSA providesthat in such circumstances the carrier’s liability beyond that recognized byCOGSA. The same rationale compels rejection of defendant’s argument, acceptedby the district court judges, that the term“deliver” in the contract ofcarriage can be interpreted by trade custom to encompass only 99.5% of thecargo loaded.
在The Carlisle案中，美国法院认为在油类运输中承运人主张的存在千分之五的trade allowance惯例不应被支持。审理该案的上诉法院基于《海牙规则》的精神进行了分析，其认为收货人已经提供初步证据证明货物短少，承运人负有举证义务证明其尽到了恪尽职责的义务。其认为如果认可承运人当然可享受该千分之五trade allowance将倒置举证义务，其将使得收货人需举证某些特别原因（例如承运人的过失）导致短少、承运人负有举证责任，而这有违海上货物运输法的精神且有违法院在先前案例中对该条款进行的解释。
2、The Sonja case
In the Sonja, which, while citing theprevious cases refusing to apply the 0.5% percent allowance, held that theOwners proved that 0.6 percent shortage of the total cargo was due toin-transit loss caused by changes in A.P.I. gravity, temperature, andB.S&W. content, as an exception under COGSA.
在The Sonja案中，法官判决承运人证明了涉案短少是运输过程中API度、温度等变化导致，因此可不对于货方主张的千分之六的货物短少承担赔偿责任。
3、Guangzhou Green Oil vs BOC Insurance
The plaintiff Guangzhou Green Oil was thebuyer and receiver of a cargo of Argentina Soybeans. The defendant BOCInsurance was the marine cargo insurer of the shipment.
When the cargo arrived at Guangzhou, thequantity discharged was only 65,636 MT according to CIQ Weight Certificatewhile the bill of lading recorded that 65,930 MT's cargo had been loaded onboard. At the port of loading, the moisture rate of the cargo was 11.57%according to the FOSFA approved surveyor. At Huangpu, the moisture rate was10.7% according to the CIQ quality test. The cargo receiver claim shortage of294 MT against the insurer under the cargo insurance policy. However, theinsurer refused the claim, and the case was lodged in front of GuangzhouMaritime Court.
The courts' reasoning can be summarized asfollows. Regarding the finding of facts with respect to shortage, the courtsheld that although inaccuracy of measurement always exists and is unavoidable,the quantity evidenced by CIQ Weight Certificate shall be held as the"true quantity discharged" subject to that the CIQ has carried outthe survey as per the regulation.
Regarding the 0.5% inaccuracy defense, thecourts rejected the defense as it was agreed in the cargo insurance policy that"the policy covers shortage liability till the port of discharge, weightdischarged to be final as per CIQ weight certificate".
The court further expressed its opinion withrespect to whether the carrier/insurer shall be granted 0.5% allowance. Thecourt's principle was that the carrier/insurer shall always pay and only insome exceptional circumstances will be illegible for exemption from liability.The courts stated that considering China was the top importer of major cargo suchas grain, iron ore and coal it is more advisable to protect the interest of thecargo receiver.
Regarding the moisture evaporation defense,the courts held that the defense should not be upheld due to the moisture ratewas tested according to different standards, in Argentina as per FOSFA standardand in China as per Chinese statutory standard.
针对此案，广东高院在(2012)粤高法民四终字第17号案的案例评析中有如下评论：
“一票货物重量的真值在理论上是存在且唯一的，但由于使用任何计量方式皆有误差可能，且误差有正误差与负误差之分，对于现实中通过一定计量方式来获得的某次具体重量数值，是难以确定其是否与真值一致、与真值差距多少的。因此，只要是按既定操作规程进行检验后得出的结论，尤其是法定检验机构（指商检）出具的正式检验结果，就应被视为真值，否则重量检验便失去意义。《进出口商品重量鉴定规程一水尺计重》仅为关于重量检验方面的技术操作规范，从其第3条的内容本身并不能推出“水尺计重存在0.5％误差”的一般性结论，故以该条款作为水尺计重允差范围的依据是对相应技术操作规范的片面理解，不足以据此否定重量证书等文件所载计重结果的准确性。”
可见，广东省的法官并不认为千分之五短少是国际惯例、承运人必然可享受千分之五误差免责。
此外关于上面提到的，法官对于Moisture evaporation的抗辩，只说可能检验标准不一致就不予支持的说法似乎有点牵强。在较老的案件Case of Talisman，Red Tulip及The world Prestige[1982] 1 Lyoyd’s Rep.60. 法官都接受船东关于Moisture evaporation 这类的抗辩。如果仅仅出于保护收货人的立场出发，那得需要更有说服力的证据，要不想要成为一个像英国一样真正的仲裁强国，还有很多路要走。
4、London Arbitration 18/13 (2013) 889 LMLN 4
Out of 280,000 bags shipped, 274,687 weredischarged in sound condition. 226 were said to have fallen into the sea and2,583 had suffered damage as a result of tearing. The result was that there wasa shortage of 1,553 bags.
The cargo receivers brought a claimagainst the vessel in the sum of usd105,861.71. The Owners subsequently settledthe claim for usd84,689.50.
在该案中，船东并没有抗辩说短少部分适用Trade Allowance, 而仅仅是和租家抗辩租家委托的卸货工人是否胜任的问题。法官最终判决如下：
Accordingly, the charterers had failed to make good their case that if the stevedores were incompetent(and there was therefore a breach of the implied term) they couldnevertheless not be held responsible for any such incompetence given theparticular situation at the discharge port at the time.
The tribunal wassatisfied that the Owners had acted reasonably in concluding the settlementwith the cargo receivers, and accordingly the Owners were entitled to thedamages claimed.
在North Shipping Company Ltd v Joseph Rank& Co Ltd, (1926) 26 Ll. L. Rep. 123 案中：
The court found that the recipient talliedempty cargo bags, and multiplied the weight of one bag to figure out the wholeweight after discharge. It was highly likely that they had received the cargobut just lost some empty bags, which affected the result. There was also doubtcast on the accuracy of the machine and the successful and fair selection ofthe bags to be weighed. Therefore the court denied the claim for short delivery.
同样是因为卸货工人方面的问题，船东不负责所谓的短货索赔。
6、参Hague/Visby Rules Art. IV 2 (m)
the carrier will be exempt from liability forcargo loss or damage caused by “wastage in bulk or weight or any other loss or damagearising from inherent defect, quality or vice of the goods”.
及我国海商法第51条(9)：
The carrier shall not be liable for theloss of or damage t…(9) nature or inherent vice of the goods…
因此船东对货物自然特性或者固有缺陷造成的不付赔偿责任。
参上面相关案例，这个5‰的Trade Allowance 似乎不被支持，但如果船东能证明是货物方面的自然特性或者因为租家收货人方面因为安排装卸工人出问题，则船东可以免责。
关于这个Trade Allowance，Skuld 给的解释是：
In an ideal world, the shipowner willdeliver the cargo to the receiver in the same quantity as it was loaded if there is no accident during the voyage. However the reality is that it is notunusual to find the cargo slightly short landed, in particular for the bulkcargo or liquid oil product, without any sound explanations. This is calledtrade allowance. You can find other names in English cases, such as transitloss tolerance, wastage, or transpiration losses and so on.
另参P&I CLUB 对于5‰ tradeallowance 是否是国际惯例给予的解释如下：
Bulkcargo shortage claims are brought about when difference between the B/L and discharge figures is greater than the customary trade allowance. Thisdifference or shortage being due to factors such as measurement inaccuracies between the load and discharge ports, physical properties of the cargo(inherent vice) like evaporation through ventilation etc. It is assumed thatunless this shortage exceeds a percentage (usually 0.5%) of the total quantityof cargo regarded as ‘customary’ in that trade; claim of cargo shortage willarise and the carrier will most likely be held accountable.
In fact, contrary to above, there is no uniform levelof this trade allowance or a binding law confirming that that the carrier willbe automatically exonerated from any liability when the shortages are less thanthe tolerance (0.5%) admitted. In other words there is no guarantee that thereceivers will ignore small shortages and can still request a P&I Club LOUfor the smallest of shortages.
The phrase 'customary allowance'originally stems from the cargo underwriter's insurance deductible (which wasapplied as depreciation on goods in transit marine insurance policies). The0.5% allowance could be better described as 'measurement allowance' sincemeasurement of any bulk commodity as mariners would know is more than an artthan a science!
及在 The San Jacinto 案中:
InThe San Jacinto, the majority recognized the trade allowance but disagreedthat it should automatically be applied, stating:
As to the so-called trade allowance ofhalf of one percent on which Owners rely, we suggest that some basis conceptsshould be restated. It would be helpful if the industry would refer to thisissue in different terms. In our view, there is no any such thing as a trade “allowance”in these matter. No one reasonably suggests that for every 100 barrels carried,one half barrel may be kept, disposed of or otherwise unaccounted for. The termis a misnomer. An allowance is: “… a share or portion allotted of granted… abounty… a reduction from a list price of stated price”[ citing Webster’sDictionary]
A more proper concept would be to definethe so-called trade allowance as an inevitable loss due to the nature of theproduct, for which there if not any liability on the part of the carrier…
It is the opinion of the majority thatcertain losses do, in fact, occur during the transit and discharging which are inherent to the nature of the cargo, the mode of transportation and also attributableto the manner in which quantities are measured, which cannot and should not beheld against the Owners. However, the amount of such loss, or the quantum ofusual loss varies with product, vessel and changes in technology. Therefore,the application of a half of one percent “allowance” as a standard for theindustry is an arbitrary action which disregards the fact that differentvessels and cargoes might warrant other considerations.
可见此5‰ tradeallowance并不是国际惯例也没有法律确认此惯例。
当然，国内典型的支持船东关于此5‰ tradeallowance抗辩的案例有如下：
1） （2015）厦海法商字第102号案，法院认为“大宗散货水尺计重的计量方式存在合理误差，是社会生活的一个常识。根据原国家进出口商品检验局颁布，现仍实施的《进出口商品重量鉴定规程-水尺计重》的规定，水尺计重过程中，影响其计算准确度的因素很多，水尺计重的误差可以在千分之五范围内。因此，除非提单收货人有证据证明在千分之五范围内的短量是由于承运人应当承担赔偿责任的过错引起的，否则承运人应就此免责。” 该案二审维持原判，最高院驳回了收货人的再审申请（（2016）最高法民申1109号）。
2） （2015）民申字第1318号案，最高院在驳回再审申请的民事裁定书中说明“关于5‰以内的货物短量不承担赔偿责任。再审申请人没有证据证明船舶制表准确度不符合要求。一审判决也是在扣除了5‰的水尺误差可能造成的货物短量后作出的，再审申请人并没有对此提出上诉。本案货物到港后发现短量，一、二审判决对允许的误差进行扣减，有事实依据。”该案一审判决由北海海事法院作出。
但这不足以说明5‰ trade allowance就是国际惯例或者说一定会被法院接受。
关于这两个案，笔者以为法官还应该让船方举证当时因为外界原因而导致这个水尺检量不准，从而导致在卸港发生短货。
为了避免遭到短货索赔，船东及船方需采取必要的措施，如下：
1. Measuring/recording the moisture content of the cargo at the load anddischarge ports. （此类和货物含水量证书相关的异常重要）
2. Conducting joint draft surveys at the load and discharge ports,preferably involving a Club surveyor. （做好水尺检量，尤其是碰到天气不好，涌浪太大等情况一定要拍照保留证据）
3. Taking measurements of the hold volume and stowage factor.（舱容及积载因素）
4. Jointly sealing/unsealing the holds upon both departure and arrival. （必要时采取封舱，证明原来装的是多少，卸的也是多少）
5. Clausing the bill of lading if the declared weight is not accurate.（如果有争议，一定要添加批注）
6. Preparing mate’s receipts that record the quantity of loaded cargo asrecorded by the vessel.（有差异，备用船方的数据）
7. Maintaining accurate records of (i) the quantity of bilge water pumpedout (ii) ventilation timings/duration and (iii) temperatures. （航行中做好排水记录）
8. Using the same methods at both the load and discharge ports formeasuring cargo.
（装卸货采取一样的方式）
采取这些基本措施后，有时候可能仍有争议，那么最好就在合同里列明这个trade allowance在多少范围内船东不负责。参SKULD的意见：
Arealistic method to avoid the dispute is that both parties should try to makean agreement on the trade allowance figure in their contact beforehand; thehigher the better for the shipowner.
三、总结
笔者认为5‰ tradeallowance应该赋予其原本的含义，和早先油轮案例一样，原油因为其自然特性，会粘在货舱壁、管路等从而导致卸货量少于提单数量；或者由于货物挥发的自然特性，如松节油等；或者承运人证明由于外界因素造成水尺检量出现误差，比如恶劣天气，涌浪影响造成水尺检量出现较大误差等等，在这种情况下，承运人应该给予这个trade allowance考虑。反之如果承运人无法举证，那么在提单责任下就应该为短货负责。换句话说，装港一切都好好的，凭什么让无辜的第三方买家为你承运人的过失买单？你承运人咋不装多了，偏偏就少了呢？
因此，如果承运人想享受这5‰ tradeallowance免责的话，那么承运人需得去证明已经采取了必要的措施，这些误差是外部因素造成的或者是货物本身自然特性造成的。
参考资料：
1．《大宗散货运输千分之五合理损耗、计量误差的思考》
作者：应送波 上海海复律师事务所
2.《有关司法实践中大宗散货千分之五短量免责的探讨》
作者：雷荣飞 广东敬海（南沙）律师事务所律师，《海商法资讯》主编
3.《China:Cargo Shortage Claims-Soybean Cases》
作者： Cao Yanghui, Wilson Wang, Wang Jing &Co (敬海律师事务所)
4. 《Trade Allowance-Law and Practice》
作者：Dr.Wei Fan, Skuld Marketing Lawyer
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
