An Estonian marine fuel supply firm has secured a favorable decision from an arbitration court in China in a dispute with an unnamed Fujian-based distant-water fishing company.
The decision resolves a disagreement centered around Bunker Partner Ou’s supply of fuel oil to the vessels operated by the Chinese company. Originally considered by the Chinese Maritime Arbitration Court, the case was eventually transferred to the Xiamen Maritime Court in Fujian Province. The Xiamen Maritime Court has granted a “preservation of assets” order on the fishing company, according to a statement from the court, though it’s not clear where the case now stands in terms of enforcement.
Bunker Partner did not respond to a request from SeafoodSource for comment on the case, which was made to the company’s head office.
Marine-related financial disputes, and their resolution through arbitration, are common in China, given the country’s huge shipping fleet and its position as a key global trading nation. Beijing has been keen to bolster the reputation of its arbitrage courts as it expands its footprint through the Belt and Road Initiative.
“This shows that countries on the Belt and Road Initiative are willing to submit to arbitration at our Chinese courts,” Xiamen Maritime Court said in a statement issued to local media.
Headquartered in Tallinn, and with offices in Copenhagen, Cyprus, and Vladivostok, Bunker Partner Ou has a fuel supply network serving marine vessels globally. It contracts with a Russian independent refinery to supply fuel to vessels in Siberian ports.
Headquartered in Beijing, the China Maritime Arbitration Commission (“CMAC”) was originally established in the 1950s and later set up commissions in key port and fishing cities. The CMAC also set up a Fishery Dispute Resolution Center as well as a Logistics Dispute Resolution Center.
China’s push into the South China Sea has dented the appetite among Southeast Asian nations to submit to a Chinese arbitration body. In 2016, China refused to accept or recognize a ruling from a tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which dismissed China’s claims of nearly 90 percent of the South China Sea – even though China negotiated and ratified the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, under which the ruling was made.
