This document also incorporated by reference a charter party--a contract between MISC and Pan Ocean regarding the Vessel.The charter party here is not part of the record because Pan Ocean would not disclose its terms. An opinion of the Chinese court in the related proceeding, however, stated that English law governed disputes under the charter party. § 1782, regarding various aspects of the Vessel's loading, the charter party, and the bill of lading for use in an "imminent foreign proceeding." The District Court granted this limited discovery.
A letter from Pan Ocean's counsel indicated that the charter party chose "New York law with U. On May 15, 2003, Sinochem filed an action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in which it sought discovery, pursuant to 28 U. On June 8, 2003, Sinochem petitioned the Guangzhou Admiralty Court in China (the "Chinese Admiralty Court") for preservation of a maritime claim against MISC and for the arrest of the Vessel when it arrived in China, claiming that MISC had fraudulently backdated the bill of lading to April 30, 2003.
The Chinese Admiralty Court ordered the ship arrested that same day.
But it did state that, "provided limited discovery, [MISC] might be able to identify sufficient national contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over [Sinochem] through the federal long-arm statute." The Court declined In dismissing on forum non conveniens grounds, the District Court noted, in the absence of any argument to the contrary by MISC, that an adequate alternative forum for deciding MISC's negligent misrepresentation claim existed in the Chinese Admiralty Court.
The District Court then reasoned that the "private interest" factors relevant to its forum non conveniens determination (which include, inter alia, ease of access to sources of proof and availability of compulsory process to obtain the attendance of unwilling witnesses) weighed in favor of dismissal because the main witnesses were located in China, and the American witnesses would have to travel to China for Sinochem's action regardless whether MISC's action continued in the United States.
The carrier had to reimburse the bill of lading holder for the shortage of 35 containers.. The b/l may come in the hands of a person who is not the rightful holder and not entitled to take delivery of the goods.
Or a person presents a false b/l (better: a fictitious b/l or non-document) to the sea carrier.The b/l is equally important in the trade as so called third party document which the seller of the goods must present to the bank in order to receive payment of the purchase price under a letter of credit.This makes I think the b/l a key document in international shipping and trade, standing on the cross roads of shipping, trade and banking law.The arrest of the Vessel was then carried out at the Huangpu Port in China.MISC posted security (,000,000), and the Vessel was released.The Chinese High Court rejected MISC's argument that the choice-of-law provisions of the bill of lading and the charter party controlled the case and that jurisdiction therefore properly rested with the London Maritime Arbitration Commission.