Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Resources signed a ban in Feb 2012 on the export of certain unprocessed mining commodities including metal minerals such as nickel ore, iron and bauxite and came into force on Feb 6th. This ban permits the miner three months period for preparation, which means that it has to be implemented completely in May. The purpose of the ban is to encourage the development of local processing plants, thereby ensuring that a greater proportion of the potential value of these commodities is retained locally.
In accordance with the Correspondent inIndonesia, Spica Services, the Authority may grant temporary export permits to companies which are committed to developing the capacity to process their unprocessed ores by 2014, otherwise the Authority will take action to detain the vessel. However, concerning the situation of Indonesian legal system and the government’s determination to enforce the ban, one local trade association named POMALAA has stated that after May 6th, the vessel entering Indonesian ports to load unprocessed ore cargoes will be detained.
Therefore, the Owners who have vessels which are due to call at Indonesian to load unprocessed mineral cargoes should contact the Charterers to clarify. The actual situation is unknown at this stage; we wonder whether vessels which are partly or fully loaded have to unload the cargo prior to leaving the port. Under the situation of uncertain legal validity of temporary export permits, their local agents can assist to terminate loading process and dispatch the vessel as soon as possible in order that the vessel can avoid detention and some other potential losses after the enforcement of ban after May 6th.
Concerning the new legislation in Indonesia, we wonder whether a series of charter party termination will take place. Should the termination of a charter party be considered as “frustration” , i.e. the contract is automatically brought to an end at the time of the frustrating event under common law; the contractual parties will be discharged from the contract.
Unless otherwise stipulated in the charter party, the occurrence of a frustrating event will be, in most cases, governed by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943. The 1943 Act provides that money paid before the frustrating event can be recovered and that money due before the frustrating event, but not in fact paid, ceases to be payable (section 1(2)). A party who has incurred expenses is permitted, if the Court thinks fit, to retain an amount up to the value of the expenses out of any money he has been paid by the other party before frustration; or where money was due and payable at the time of frustration, recover a sum not exceeding that amount for expenses (section 1(2)). The court may require a party who has gained a valuable benefit under the contract before the frustrating event occurred, to pay a “just” sum for it. This is so whether or not anything was paid or payable before the frustrating event (section 1(3)).
If the contract is one to which the 1943 Act does not apply, then the parties must rely on the common law rules. These provide that money paid before the frustrating event is recoverable only if there is a total failure of consideration (Chandler v Webster [1904] 1 KB 493). If failure of consideration is only partial, money is not recoverable. Any expenditure incurred in performing the contract is not recoverable.
See attached file : ALCO20120035Ban on the export of nickel ore and other unprocessed ore cargoes from Indonesia – The disputes of CP may arise.pdf
有关印尼镍矿及其他未加工矿石货物的出口禁令可能引起的租约纠纷
印尼能源与矿产资源部在2012年2月签署法令，即从2012年2月起禁止未加工金属矿产品出口，包括镍、铁、铝钒土等金属矿产品，并于5月6日生效。该法令中容许矿主有三个月的准备期，即在5月份起必须完全按照法令执行。该禁令旨在鼓励当地加工产业的发展，发挥当地矿产品的潜在价值。
据印尼通代（Spica Services）报道，印尼有关部门可能会对一些能证明自己在2014年前会致力于提高加工未提炼矿石能力的出口商颁发临时的出口许可，否则有关当局将会扣留相关出口船舶。然而考虑到当前印尼法制的情况以及印尼政府对该项禁令实施的坚决程度，当地一个贸易协会已表明POMALAA港口当局将扣留在5月6日后意图运矿石产品出口的船舶。
因此，在印尼挂靠并装运未加工矿石货物的船舶所有人应当及时与其租家取得联系。我们当前无法确定当地的真实情况，对于船舶是否必须把已经部分或全部已装船的货物在离港前将货物卸载也仍然未能确定。目前，在无法确定临时出口许可法律效力的情况下，有关船东以及租家可咨询当地代理协助，尽快终止装货操作，积极速遣船舶，避免船舶扣留，以免导致损失扩大，严重影响船期和运营。
此次当地法令的改动，可能导致一连串的解除租约情况发生。因此，一些租约的无法履行将造成合同当事人被迫解除合同关系。
通常情况下，除非在合同中另有规定，否则有关合同将受《1943年法律改革（受阻合同）法》所管辖。根据该法案第一部分第2条规定，在因合同受阻而解除租约情形发生前，双方已支付的金额可收回，到期需支付但未支付的金额可以停止给付。若法院认为合理，对于在解除租约情形发生之前产生费用的一方，可在对方的预付款中予以保留；对于在解除租约情形发生时到期需支付的金额，法院可判令在预付金中保留已产生的费用。法院同样也会要求合同中规定的已获利的一方在解除租约情形发生之前需支付 “对等” 部分的数额。这就是该法案第一部分第3条规定的租约解除前是否需有资金支付或应予支付的规定。
对于不适用于1943年法案的租约，当事各方需要依据普通法的规定予以调整。根据1904年Chandler v. Webster案件的判决，只有在合约对价完全不能履行的情况下，解约前的已付款项才能予以收回；如果仅有部分不成立，有关款项将不能被收回。由合同履行而产生的任何费用都不可收回。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
