Jurisdiction and Applicable Laws in Maritime Freight Forwarding Disputes

Determining jurisdiction in disputes related to maritime freight forwarding is the foremost step. According to Article 13 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Maritime Freight Forwarding Dispute Cases," maritime courts have jurisdiction over disputes arising from maritime freight forwarding matters. But how do we define maritime freight forwarding matters? 

The first article of the aforementioned provisions clarifies: "These provisions apply to the following disputes arising from freight forwarding matters related to maritime cargo transportation accepted by freight forwarding enterprises upon being entrusted by clients:

(1) Disputes arising from the provision of booking, customs declaration, inspection, verification, and insurance services;

(2) Disputes arising from the provision of packaging, supervision of loading and unloading, container stuffing and unpacking, distribution, and transshipment services;

(3) Disputes arising from the preparation and delivery of relevant documents or fee settlement;

(4) Disputes arising from the provision of warehousing and land transportation services;

(5) Disputes arising from the handling of other maritime freight forwarding matters."

Apart from the issue of special jurisdiction mentioned here, there is also the question of which maritime court in a specific region has jurisdiction. I will illustrate this with a case example. In the case of Shaoxing Zhongjing International Freight Forwarding Co., Ltd. v. Ramcos and others (Case No. (2014) YHFSCZ No. 313) heard by the Ningbo Maritime Court, it was determined that the place of contract signing, performance, and the location of Ramcos' Shaoxing representative office and Rose Company's domicile all fell within the jurisdiction of the Ningbo Maritime Court, which is responsible for the Zhejiang Province. Therefore, the Ningbo Maritime Court had jurisdiction. 

In this case, the maritime court where the contract was signed, performed, and where the defendant resided all have corresponding jurisdiction. If these three locations belong to different maritime courts, the parties can choose the jurisdiction and confirm it in the contract. If multiple maritime courts have jurisdiction over the dispute, the parties' autonomy becomes crucial.

If the contract stipulates that litigation should be conducted in the court with jurisdiction at the location of one party, and it does not violate relevant laws and regulations, then for that party, filing and responding to the lawsuit in their own locality would result in relatively lower legal and time costs. Conversely, for the other party, due to increased legal and time costs, they would be more inclined to settle the dispute through negotiation. This is why I strongly recommend signing written contracts and including jurisdiction clauses that favor one's own interests.

Regarding the issue of applicable laws in this case, the Ningbo Maritime Court determined that the domicile of the defendant, Ramcos, is located in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the defendants, Marta and others, are Indian citizens. Therefore, this case involves a maritime freight forwarding contract dispute with foreign and Hong Kong elements. Jurisdiction belongs to procedural matters and should be governed by the law of the court's territorial jurisdiction, which means Chinese laws and regulations apply. Therefore, the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Maritime Freight Forwarding Dispute Cases" and relevant provisions in the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" are applicable to this dispute.