【案例研讨】亚太地区经典PSC案例一（上篇）

小编的话

 从这一期开始，我们将放送一系列亚太地区港口国监督的经典案例，希望能在处理类似情况时提供借鉴参考。每一期的上篇会提供案例基本情况，下篇则会给出相应的结论或评论，欢迎亲在评论区内给出您的看法和观点哦~

某集装箱船因以下可滞留缺陷被滞留:

机舱的两个防火挡板无法关闭。

争议 DISPUTE 

船旗国主管机关不认同港口国当局的滞留，理由如下:

1.公司可以证明该防火挡板及其控制系统定期按照SOLAS公约II-2章/第14.2.2条和MSC/ Cire. 850的要求进行测试和检查，且每个星期做的手动控制和每6月进行的遥控控制的记录都可以提供;

2.防火挡板没有完全关闭到位可以看作是误差，由于挡板是仍然可操作的，所以并没有严重恶化，并且船员立即采取行动在短时间内解决了该问题;

3.修复完成后，在港口国监督检查官离船前就告知了他们，但港口国监督检查官并没有接受;并且

4.港口国监督检查官没有采取一切可能的努力和必要的判断以避免船舶造成不必要的滞留。

基于上述情况，船旗国主管机关认为滞留并不公正合理。

The flag State did not agree with the detention by the port State Authority and expressed views that:

1. the company could prove that the fire dampers and their controls were tested frequently and inspected as required by SOLAS II-2/14.2.2 and MSC/Circ.850. The records of the tests and inspections, which are carried out weekly for local control and 6 monthly for remote control, are available;

2. The two fire dampers not closing completely could be seen as a deviation, but not as serious deterioration since the dampers were operable and the crew took immediate action to settle the deficiency within short time;

3. The repair was successfully completed and informed to the PSCOs before they left the ship however which was not accepted by the PSCOs; and

4.  The PSCOs did not exercise all possible efforts and the necessary judgement to avoid an undue detention of the vessel.

Based on the above, the flag State is of the opinion that the detention was not justified.

港口国当局观点如下:

1.根据相关强制性规定，'机舱两个防火挡板无法关闭'的缺陷已经足够严重到导致该船被滞留;

2.根据SOLAS81修正案第II-2章第2.2.7条，任何灭火装置都应即刻可用;

3.港口国监督程序(IMO RES A.787 (19))附录1'关于滞留船舶的指南'明确指出: 缺失、不符合或严重恶化，以致火灾探测系统、火灾报警、消防设备、固定式灭火装置、通风闸、防火挡板和速闭装置不能履行其预定的用途。

4.港口国监督检查官清楚地记得，他们从来没有被告知该可滞留缺陷已经在其离开前得到纠正。

因此滞留是合理的。

The port State Authority is of the opinion that:

1. the deficiency of “TWO FIRE DMAPERS OF E/R CAN NOT CLOSE.” is serious enough leading to the ship detained according to the relevant mandatory requirements;

2. according to the SOLAS 81 Amendments II-2 Reg.2.2.7, any fire-extinguishing appliances should be readily available;

3. the Appendix 1 “Guidelines for the detention of ships” in Port State Control Procedures (IMO Res. A.787(19)) also clearly states that:

'Absence, non-compliance or substantial deterioration to the extent that it cannot comply with its intended use of fire detection system, fire alarms, fire-fighting equipment, fixed fire-extinguishing installation, ventilation valves, fire dampers, and quick-closing devices';

4. PSCOs clearly remember that they had never been informed that the detainable deficiencies had been rectified before left ship.

Therefore the detention was considered judicial.

问题 QUESTION

你认为滞留合理吗?

Do you think this detention justified?

【下篇】敬请期待

如果想知道更多国际海事前沿资讯，请持续关注“China PSC”，也可点击“PSC资讯”菜单获取更多热点信息。我们将持续为您提供专业、准确的港口国监督检查信息发布、信息查询、技术咨询等帮助与指导。