Bunker Surveys & Charter Party Rights: Navigating Disputes with Clarity

 

⚖️ Bunker Surveys & Charter Party Rights: Navigating Disputes with Clarity

❓ Can a Master reject a bunker survey without giving valid reasons?
❓ What happens if interconnected tanks and valve leaks affect the BQS accuracy?
❓ How should Owners and Charterers protect their rights without escalating disputes?

If you hesitated on any of these, this blog is for you. 🚢

 

🔍 Clause Breakdown – Understanding the Issue

In dry bulk shipping, bunker surveys are critical. They establish the exact fuel onboard at delivery/redelivery, protect both Owners and Charterers from disputes, and ensure customs compliance.

In the recent clause:

• Firm BQS (Bunker Quantity Survey) means all tanks must be sounded upon arrival. This avoids disputes caused by interconnections, valve leaks, or line failures.
• Charterers exercised their contractual right to measure bunkers via a professional surveyor.
• The Master, however, rejected the findings unilaterally without giving reasons. This creates a legal and operational red flag.

⚠️ Why does it matter? Because once bunkers are declared to customs, wrong figures can lead to financial penalties, disputes, and strained commercial relations.

Real-Life Scenario

Imagine a Kamsarmax arriving in ballast. Survey shows 500 MT of VLSFO. Master disputes this, claiming figures are wrong—but gives no written justification. Customs has already received the 500 MT declaration. If Owners later claim “only 470 MT onboard,” this discrepancy could trigger penalties, off-hire disputes, or even allegations of misdeclaration.

 

⚓ Practical Guidance – Owners, Charterers & Operators

✅ For Charterers

• Insist on full tank sounding at both arrival & departure. Document with surveyor’s report + photos.
• Request Master’s countersignature on the BQS. If refused, log protest immediately.
• Customs Sensitivity – once declared, bunker figures must align. Highlight this to Owners to avoid exposure.

✅ For Owners

• Train Masters on BQS procedure & dispute handling. A unilateral “rejection” without written reasons weakens Owners’ position.
• If disagreeing with surveyor’s report, issue a letter of protest with technical grounds (e.g., sounding errors, trim corrections, tank not settled).
• Cooperate with Charterers – remember bunker disputes rarely end in Owners’ favor if transparency is missing.

✅ For Operators (like us at ShipOps desks)

• Always share surveyor credentials in advance to avoid bias claims.
• Cross-check reported ROB with noon reports & last supply receipts.
• Ensure bunker clauses in C/P are aligned with BIMCO Bunker Fuel Sulphur Content Clause and Bunker Quality Control Clause for added protection.

 

📚 Industry References

• BIMCO Commentary: Masters should cooperate fully with bunker surveys, but reserve the right to note protest if disagreement arises.
• Case Law: The Kostas Melas [1981] emphasized accuracy in ROB figures and Owners’ responsibility when Masters reject without justification.
• Best Practice: ICS & OCIMF bunker measurement guidelines highlight full tank soundings + proper sealing of VV lines to prevent manipulation.

 

🌟 Conclusion & Call-to-Action

At sea, trust is built not just on cargo carried, but on figures that align. A disputed bunker survey without reasons only creates friction. The solution? Transparency, documentation, and dialogue.

💡 Remember: “Figures tell the truth, but only if all parties agree on how they are measured.”

👉 Shipping family, how do you handle ROB disputes onboard your vessels? Share your thoughts below!
💬 Like, Comment, Share & Follow ShipOpsInsights with Dattaram for more practical wisdom that bridges law, operations, and leadership at sea. 🌍⚓

 

⚠️ Disclaimer: This blog is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice. For specific cases, always consult qualified maritime legal professionals.