Whether seizure of cargo by local customs authorities amounted to “government interference”
Sucden Middle-East v. Yagci Denizcilik Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi (MV Muammer Yagci)  EWHC 3873 (Comm)
This recent Commercial Court decision has held that the seizure of a cargo by local customs authorities at the discharge port, leading to a delay in discharge, amounted to a “government interference” within the relevant charterparty provision, with the consequence that time lost would not count as demurrage.
The background facts
The receiver of a cargo of sugar for discharge in Algiers, Algeria, submitted import documentation to the Annaba Customs Directorate (the “ACD”), part of the Algerian Ministry of Finance, for the clearance and payment of customs duties on the cargo. Upon inspection, the ACD found a discrepancy between the invoice price of the cargo and the market price, which allegedly breached Algeria’s Foreign Exchange regulations.
In response, the ACD seized the cargo under powers given to it under Algeria’s customs laws and regulations. As a result of the ACD’s decision to seize the cargo, the discharge of the cargo was delayed by four and a half months. The seizure of the cargo involved not only the ACD, but also the General Director of Customs, a high ranking government officer, and Algeria’s Public Prosecutor.
The Charterers sought to rely on Clause 28 of the Sugar Charter Party 1999 Form, which has a side heading “Strikes and Force Majeure” and which provides that time lost will not count as laytime or time on demurrage in a number of circumstances, one of which is “government interferences”.
In arbitration, the Tribunal found in favour of the Owners, concluding that seizure of the cargo by the ACD could not be construed as “government interference”. The Charterers appealed.
The Commercial Court decision
There was no dispute that those involved in the seizure of the cargo were government entities. Accordingly, the focus of the appeal was on the meaning of “interferences”. The Court noted that an ordinary meaning of the word included an intervention in this specific form, that is, the seizure of a cargo.
Reference was made to the 2012 decision in The Ladytramp, which set out a number of examples of activities carried out by a port authority that would not or might not amount to “government interferences”. This list included a port authority ordering a vessel off a berth for the reason of poor weather or in order to accommodate the berth or terminal operator’s desire to give priority to another vessel.
In distinguishing the ACD’s actions in this case, the Court considered that seizure of a cargo by a government authority could not be treated as a routine occurrence. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal’s finding that the seizure of the cargo following the submission of false documents was expected and was, therefore, an ordinary action. In the usual course of things, cargo is not seized and on the facts of this case and, in particular, in light of the finding that the seizure was by a State revenue authority acting in a sovereign capacity, the seizure fell within Clause 28.
The Court also rejected the argument that the submission of the false documents caused the delay. Rather, it was the ACD’s decision to seize the cargo that resulted in the delay.
The Court noted that the clause’s side heading incorporated the words “force majeure”. However, force majeure was not a term of art and the words simply acted as the label for a list, with the list including a mixture of matters. The list informed the meaning of the heading rather than the other way around.
The Court gave the words “government interferences” their natural and ordinary meaning. In doing so, it highlighted that its decision was concerned only with the seizure of a cargo by a government entity. Nonetheless, the Court noted that it might not always be necessary to have the involvement of high level government agencies and officers in the seizure in order for Clause 28 to apply. The Court said it could not have been intended that the parties should have to ask how high up the chain of government command the action was authorised or would need to be authorised in order to come within the clause. Query, however, whether a government entity acting in a purely administrative capacity might come under Clause 28.
Related news & insights
News / Ince celebrates one year since Scotland office opening
23-11-2022 / Insurance, Maritime, Real Estate
We are pleased to be celebrating one year since opening our first Scottish office in the city of Glasgow. Stefanie Johnston, dual-qualified Partner and Head of Scotland, has worked tirelessly over the last year to develop our offering through the opening of an Ince office in what is arguably an established Scottish market. Starting from the ground up, Stefanie and her team have successfully gained an admirable reputation in the region and further afield in the maritime, insurance, real estate and regulatory sectors.
News / Shipping E-brief November 2022
17-11-2022 / Maritime
The Shipping E-Brief is a publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.
News / Appeals from arbitration: is reform required?
15-11-2022 / Maritime
In September 2022, the UK Law Commission published a consultation paper with provisional recommendations for updating the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act 1996). Amongst other things, the Law Commission considered whether any changes need to be made to: (i) s.67 of the Act 1996, which deals with jurisdictional challenges to arbitral awards; and (ii) s.69 of the Act 1996, which deals with appeals on points of law.
News / Owners not in breach of charter and entitled to claim demurrage
09-11-2022 / Maritime
CM P-MAX III Limited v. Petroleos Del Norte SA (MT Stena Primorsk)  EWHC 2147 (Comm) This recent laytime and demurrage dispute demonstrates that an owner can legitimately refuse orders where such orders may jeopardise the safety of a vessel.
News / Court of Appeal finds owner should have accepted non-contractual performance
09-11-2022 / Maritime
Mur Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd  EWCA Civ 1406 A majority of the Court of Appeal has held that the Owner under a contract of affreightment (COA) should have accepted payment of freight in Euros, rather than the US dollars provided for in the COA. Its refusal to do so meant that the Owner could not rely on the force majeure clause in the COA, in circumstances where US sanctions might have restricted US dollar transfers from or on behalf of the Charterer.
News / “Due” means due!
03-11-2022 / Maritime
Ceto Shipping Corporation v. Savory Inc (Victor 1)  EWHC 2636 (Comm) The Court in this case had to construe a purchase option clause in a bareboat charter. Specifically, it considered whether the fact that the charterer had not fulfilled certain payment obligations under the charter because it was disputing them in good faith meant that the owner was not obliged to transfer title to the vessel at the end of the charter period.