Bill of lading

A document issued by a carrier, or its agent, to the shipper as a contract of

carriage of goods. It is also a receipt for cargo accepted for transportation, and
must be presented for taking delivery at the destination.
Among other items of information, a bill of lading contains (1) consignor's and
consignee's name, (2) names of the ports of departure and destination, (3)
name of the vessel, (4) dates of departure and arrival, (5) itemized list of goods
being transported with number of packages and kind of packaging, (6) marks
and numbers on the packages, (7) weight and/or volume of the cargo, (8)
freight rate and amount.
1. Evidence of Contract of Carriage
2. Receipt of Goods and
3. Document of Title to the goods
Once after completing necessary customs clearance procedures at load port,
carrier issues Bill of Lading to you. The shipper under this bill of lading is you in
India and consignee is your buyer ABC in China. The port of loading will be your
loading port and port of discharge and place of delivery are in USA as final port
of discharge and final place of delivery. Once after discounting / negotiating
your export bills, you send the said Bill of Lading to your buyer ABC in China
along with other required documents as usual through your bank.

Procedure for ship arrest

In India, the Admiralty Jurisdiction is confined only to few courts. Initially the
High Courts of Bombay (Mumbai), Madras (Chennai), and Calcutta (Kolkata)
exercise jurisdiction over maritime matters which was later extended to the
High Courts of Gujarat (Ahmedabad), Andhra Pradesh (Hyderabad), Orissa
(Cuttack) and Kerala (Cochin). These courts can make orders with respect to
the vessels within the waters of Indian Territory. The power of most of these
High Courts is confined only to vessels which can be located within the domestic
limit of their territorial waters. For instance, Madras High Court is empowered
to arrest a vessel found in the waters of Tamil Nadu only.

The High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay, on the other hand, have no such
restriction over their admiralty jurisdiction and can make an order for arrest a
vessel found anywhere in Indian territorial waters and not just to vessels in
their respective state territorial waters. In others words, the Bombay High Court
can exercise admiralty jurisdiction over a vessel in Calcutta irrespective of the
place of location. This difference makes Mumbai and Kolkata a preferred Court
over others since they can arrest vessels irrespective of its location provided if
the vessel is within Indian territorial waters.

Jurisdiction to arrest over following Claims:

The maritime law of India is largely based on the principles of the admiralty
jurisdiction of England. The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts at Calcutta,
Madras and Bombay were based on the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court
in England. The Admiralty jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in the Indian
Republic is still governed by the obsolete English Admiralty Courts Act, 1861
applied by (English) Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. Even though there
have been subsequent legislations providing for admiralty jurisdiction of certain
Courts in India, most of these have been adopted from England. A list of claims
for which a vessel can be arrested is provided under the Admiralty Courts Act,
1840 and Admiralty Courts Act, 1861, provide.
The two conventions which deal with the arrest of a shipping vessel are the
Arrest Convention 1952 and the Arrest Convention 1999. India is not a
signatory to any of these Conventions. However, the Supreme Court in the case
of M.V. Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd.[1] held that since
India is a common law country, the International Convention of the Arrest of
Seagoing Ships, Brussels, 10 May 1952 can be applied to India to enforce the
claims of maritime law against the foreign ships. Further, in the case of M.V.
Sea Success[2], the Supreme Court of India laid down that the principles of the
1999 Geneva Arrest Convention were applicable for arresting a ship in India. It
was observed by the court that the principles set out in these Conventions are

in compliance with the domestic law of India and therefore by this decision, the
Apex Court has widened the scope of the jurisdiction of Indian Courts.
Of all the claims listed in the Arrest Conventions 1952 and 1999, the vessel can
be arrested for claims relating to damage done by a ship, loss of goods in
transit, salvage, masters wages, disbursements and bottomry irrespective of
any change in the ownership of the vessel. In respect of the other claims, if
there has been a change in the ownership of the vessel, the claim will fail, and
no arrest can be made unless there was a fraud committed with respect to the
change of ownership.

Documents required
The most important requirement for ship arrest is that the claimant needs to
issue a Power of Attorney in favour of local attorneys other that the lawyers
instructed who will have the power to sign all the necessary court documents.
The Attorney then has to sign a Vakalatnama (Note of appearance) authorising
a lawyer to act, appear and plead the case in Court on behalf of the Claimant.
The next step is filing a substantive suit. The Claimant has to state the detailed
facts, the nature of the dispute, the particulars of the claim, etc. in such a suit
along with all the documents supporting his claim such as the original contract,
type of vessel, document regarding payment, etc.

This suit essentially

represents the substantive portion of the claim. The last part of the suit must
contain the prayer of the claimant seeking arrest of the defendant, the sale of
the vessel, the amount of compensation.
The Plaintiff also needs to pay the court fees depending on the amount of the
claim which will differ from court to court. The plaintiff then has to file an
affidavit supporting his plaint, a copy of the order of the judge requiring the
arrest of the vessel along with an affidavit, a Warrant of Arrest issued by the
court pursuant to the Judges order and served upon the vessel and an
Undertaking to pay compensation in case of wrongful arrest. The plaintiff does
not need to pay compensation merely because the court had set aside the

arrest but only when the Court holds that the arrest was wrongful for instance,
if the plaintiff himself was at fault or when the plaintiff acted with bad intention.
Further, an application for ex-parte arrest can be made upon plaintiff submitting
Certificate from the Admiralty Registrar signifying there is no caveat issued
against the arrest of the vessel with the Registry. Also any claim for wages,
possession, etc. requires an issuance of notice to the Consulate of the Country
in which the vessel is registered.

Other requirements to be complied with:

Normally, all the above formalities take 2-3 days. However, if the plaintiff wishes
for an immediate arrest of the vessel, he can apply to the Court for an order of
arrest on an urgent basis either on the same day of filing an application or the
following day depending on the Courts discretion. Generally, the courts make
an order on the same day of filing application. Once the court orders the arrest
of the vessel, the judge will sign the order on the basis of which an Arrest
Warrant will be issued by the Registry. The Sheriff will then order the Court
Bailiff to serve the Warrant of Arrest upon the vessel which is required to be
arrested. The warrant also has to be served on the customs and the port
authorities requiring them not to allow the vessel to sail. The Bailiff after serving
the Warrant of Arrest upon the vessel and the port authorities will file an
affidavit stating that he has performed his duty.

Procedure after arrest:

After the Arrest Warrant is served upon the vessel, the vessel is then required
to appear through its owner and settle the claim or challenge the arrest. If the
owner challenges the order of arrest, the owner has two options. Either he can
let his vessel sail by furnishing the security for the claim and then contest the
arrest, or he can challenge the arrest by keeping the vessel under arrest.
Generally, the former is preferred since in such case; the vessel is allowed to
sail and thus can be employed for gain. In the case of default of owner, the
court can make an order for the sale of the vessel and the sale proceeds can

thereby be utilised to settle the claims of the Plaintiff. In the case of any
surplus, it must be paid back to the owner.

Nature and scope

1. International Nature
Although regulated to a large extent by national legislation, maritime law in almost all
jurisdictions is clearly shaped by international influences, in particular international
conventions. This is due to the fact that shipping by its very nature involves international
relations. The ocean-going vessels flying the flag of a state operate in all waters
throughout the world and sail from country to country. Vessels often are supplied and
repaired in foreign ports. Cargo may be damaged or lost while at sea in the course of an
international voyage or in a foreign port, and likewise seamen may be injured on the
high seas or in the waters of foreign countries. Such background facilitated the
development of common international usage and practice since antiquity. The common
universal usage and practices were subsequently adopted by national laws. Maritime
law is thus a specialized domestic law that cannot avoid international influences. This
may in part be the reason why judges and lawyers who deal with maritime law consider
themselves as specialists with an international background.
2. Comprehensiveness
The second important characteristic of maritime law is its breadth. Maritime law is a
complete legal system, just as the civil law and the common law are complete legal
systems. Maritime law, incidentally, is much older than the common law and probably
contemporaneous with the advent of the civil law. That maritime law is a complete legal
system can be readily seen from its component parts. As noted by William Tetley,
maritime law has had its own law of contract-- of sale (of ships), of service (towage), of
lease (chartering), of carriage (of goods by sea), of insurance (marine insurance being
the precursor of insurance ashore), of agency (ship chandlers), of pledge (bottomry and
respondentia), of hire (of masters and seamen), of compensation for sickness and
personal injury (maintenance and cure) and risk distribution (general average). It is and
has been a national and an international law (probably the first private international law).
It also has had its own public law and public international law. Maritime law has and has
had, as well, its own courts and procedures from earliest times.
As will be seen in due time, maritime law seeks to regulate personal and property
relationships as well as contractual and tortuous relationships. The comprehensiveness
of the law can also be seen in its administrative and few criminal provisions. In short,
maritime law is a comprehensive system of law concerning maritime matters both
public and private, with the later forming the major part.
3. Special Legal Jargons

The study of maritime law usually employs the use of complex jargons which, in most
cases, are alien to other areas of law. Understanding the subject matter without first
knowing such shipping terms may often be difficult. The presence of different jargons
peculiar to this area of law may well be attributable to its unique development. Early
maritime law the basis of modern maritime law is distinguishable from the
development of other areas of law. Though first developed in continental Europe, the
law relating to shipping was, in origin, based on customs only- custom and usage of the
sea .(See the next section for details)
Though the forthcoming discussions reveal many of these special jergons, we may
tentatively note some of them here: charter party, maritime lien, general average, and
salvage.

The measures taken in the legal field have been aimed at four main objectives: 1. To
prevent or minimize intentional discharges of oil from ships, i.e., discharges of oil
arising from what used to be regarded as "routine" operations of ships such as tank
cleaning, deballasting, etc. 2. Preventing accidents which may result in the escape
or discharge of oil into the sea, thereby causing pollution. 3. Establishing
arrangements and procedures for dealing with pollution or the threat of pollution
arising as a result of accidents; and, 4. Establishing a regime and procedures for
assigning liability for damage stiffered as a result of pollution and ensuring that
victims of such damage will be able to obtain compensation for the damage
suffered by them.
Conventions and instruments adopted primarily with the aim of preventing or
controlling discharges of oil from ships arising from the routine operation of ships
include the following: (A) The International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, with its 1962 Amendments. (B) Amendments to
the 1954/62 Convention adopted in 1969 and 1971. (C) International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.
1969 and 1971 Amendments to the 1954/62 Convention In 1969, the IMCO
Assembly adopted, by Resolution A.175(VI), extensive amendments to the 1954
Convention and its Annexes as amended in 1962.17 Excluding certain practical
exemptions, these amendments prohibit all discharges of oil through the normal
operation of ships. When they enter into force the restrictions to be applied will
include: 1. Limitation of the total quantity of oil which a tanker may_ discharge in
any ballast voyage to 1/15000 of the total cargo carrying capacity of the vessel; 2.
Limitation of the rate at which oil may be discharged to a maximum of 60 litres per
mile travelled by the ship; and, 3. Prohibition of discharge of any oil whatsoever
from the cargo spaces of a tanker within 50 miles of the nearest land. The 1969
amendments also provide for a new form of oil record book which will facilitate the
task of the officials concerned with controlling the observance of the Convention.

Governments which have received particulars from another government of an

alleged contravention by a ship carrying their flag will be obliged to inform IMCO
and the reporting government of the action taken as a consequence of the
information communicated, whether or not proceedings are brought against the
ship. When they enter into force, these amendments should considerably reduce
the overall total quantity of oil discharged into the sea and achieve significant
progress towards the ultimate goal of complete avoidance of discharge of oil. The
1969 amendments have not yet entered into force. Of the 35 acceptances required
for entry into force, 24 acceptances have so far been deposited. In 1971, the IMCO
Assembly