Three Korean shipping lines including: KMTC Line (Korea Marine Transport Company), Namsung Shipping and CK Line launched a new shipping service connecting Korea with Vietnam from May 26.

This newest service, called "NKT" (New Korea Thailand), starts at the port of Incheon, passes through several areas in Korea, Hong Kong and China before reaching the ports of Laem Chabang and Bangkok in Thailand and ending at Tan Cang Cat Lai port in southern Vietnam.

The specific itinerary of the NKT service is as follows: Incheon, Gwangyang, Busan, Hong Kong, Shekou, Laem Chabang, Bangkok, Laem Chabang, Ho Chi Minh and Incheon.

With this weekly NKT service, each carrier contributes one 1,800TEU vessel - including KMTC Line's KMTC Pusan, Namsung's Starship Aquila and CK Line's Sky Sunshine. The Starship Aquila launches service on May 26.

The shipping lines expect this new transport service will contribute to promoting imports and exports shipping between Korea, Thailand and Vietnam, and provide stable shipping services for the Southeast region ASIAN.



CU Lines (China United Lines) has just joined the Asia-Europe container shipping route and started increasing its service frequency and capacity on this route from June.

To meet customer demand on the Asia-Europe service of AEX (Asia-Europe Express Service), CU Lines will provide additional capacity from June by upgrading frequency from one sailing per month to two sailings per month and adding another two 4,250 teu containerships joining the current two same type vessels on AEX service.

The upgraded AEX will connect major ports in the Far East including Shanghai - Ningbo - Xiamen - Nansha - Yantian - Ho Chi Minh, and three main ports in Europe are Rotterdam - Hamburg - Antwerp.

In addition, CU Lines will form a joint venture, CULines Europe GMBH, with Menzell & Dohle, to provide domestic services at European ports.

In January of this year, CU Lines entered the European market for the first time.



The 23,992-TEU Ever Ace vessel will be delivered from shipbuilder Samsung Heavy Industries in July, with recent nominal sales ensuring it overtakes the HMM 28 TEU to take the position of largest container vessel in the world, a record which has been broken on an annual or even six-month basis over the past five years.

According to Alphaliner, the ship with a new green look will be deployed on Evergreen's CEM service to connect Asia with Northern Europe.

The Ever Ace is the first of 10 in a series of ships that Evergreen will receive from Samsung Heavy in Korea and CSSC in China this year and next. The Ever Ace ship features a new bulb-free design and a bright green hull, different from previous Evergreen ships.

Alphaliner describes the new Evergreen vessel as having a flared bow and full width of 24 rows of containers in the first hold. The climbing bridge is four stories high with so-called Mickey Mouse ears on the fifth floor.

Cargo ship size records have been broken several times in recent years, climbing above the 20,000 teu mark for the first time in 2017. Container ships have more than tripled in size in terms of capacity. transportation since the beginning of this century.



It is normal to inspect the goods that have been lost or damaged during the performance of the sales contract and in the contract of carriage. However, improper inspection can lead to significant disputes and damages that you can refer to below.

Summary of the case

Claimant (“ND”) and Respondent (“BD”) signed a cargo insurance contract (“Contract”), whereby the BD accepted insurance under Condition “A” General rules of cargo insurance carried by sea for the shipment of steel of all kinds of ND transported by a seagoing ship from abroad to the warehouse of ND in Vietnam. The sum insured was more than VND 10 billion. Before discharge, ND found that the goods were damaged, so he informed BD immediately. BD appointed a cargo inspection company (“Inspection Company 1”) to survey the cargo at cargo hold of the ship. After that, the parties agreed to bring the shipment to the warehouse of ND for further inspection.

The Respondent held that according to the inspection report of Inspection Company 1 (“Deed 1”), (i) the quality of the goods was of a vice or latent defect in conjunction with the cargo sweat during transportation resulting in black, yellow on the surface; (ii) because of goods defects, the possibility that they were stained black and yellow before loading could not be excluded; (iii) there was no evidence that a concave and defected surface of goods occurred during the carriage; (iv) this shipment was defective, having no guaranteed quality right from the production stage; (v) based on Deed 1 as well as other factors, the damages did not occur during the carriage but happened before loading, so BD was not responsible for compensation as per insurance liability.

In the Claimant’s opinion, the Deed 1 did not state the level of the damage of goods, so as soon as receiving this Deed, ND asked another independent inspection company to do this but the BD did not respond. Based on insurance files, the ND did not see any exclusion article to refuse compensation, so the BD had to compensate. It had been more than 5 months since end of the inspection, but the BD had no opinion on handling damaged goods and preventing additional losses, so the ND would proceed to handle damaged goods by (a) inviting an independent inspection company to determine the amount and value of the damages; and (b) publicly auctioning the damaged shipment and the BD had to compensate in the above treatment without any subsequent claims.

Some notes

• When an insured event occurred, the insurance enterprise or its authorized one shall conduct a loss/ damage inspection to determine the cause and level of the loss/damage ...” (Clause 1 of Article 48, the 2000 Law on Insurance Business). Thus, under this law, the inspection report is not allowed to determine the insurance liability. However, some inspection enterprises appointed by insurance companies stated the insurance liability in their inspection reports, which are not by law.

• The inspection report is legally valid for the requesting party if it fails to prove that the inspection result is not objective, untruthful or wrong in terms of techniques and expertise of inspection”. (Article 261 of the 2005 Law on Commerce).

• In the event that the parties have no agreement on the use of the inspection report by a particular inspection service trader, the inspection report is only legally valid to the party requesting the inspection in accordance with the provisions of Article 261 of this Law. The other party in the contract has the right to request a re-inspection “(Clause 2, Article 262 of the 2005 Law on Commerce).


Source: (Adapted from Seatrade Maritimes), VLR, Vietnam Shipping Gazette