Applicant of Retrial (defendant-appellant): Trade Expansion Shipping Company of Panama
Legal Representative: Jucalie, director
The parties on the opposition (plaintiffs-appellee): Zhong Xiaoyuan, male, ship-owner of "M/V Shanwei12138",
Anti-smuggle Office of Zhuhai, Guangdong Province
Legal Representative: Lai Baohua, director
The parties on the opposition (plaintiffs-appellee): Su Xiangkao, Su Qirong, Li Xing, Chen Hua, Liu Yangxiong, the families of who died in the collision
The parties on the opposition (plaintiffs-appellee): Zhong Wu, Zhong Muhuo, Su Zuwang, Su Wang, Su Hua, Xu Peng, Zhong Caibao, Zhong Jiarong, Zhong Jiazhong, Lu Zhihua, Cai Ji, Liu Guobao, Liang Fuming, Mao Xiangwu, etc., the survivors in the collision

　　　 Trade Expansion Shipping Company of Panama (hereinafter referred to as Trade Expansion Company) refused to accept the civil case judgement on the dispute over the damage of collision decided by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong and appealed to the Supreme People's Court for the retrial.
　　　After investigation, the Supreme People's Court finds:
　　　The Panama-registered "M/V Trade Expansion" involved in this case is a container ship and the ship-owner is the applicant of retrial Trade Expansion Company. The ship is 163.03-meter long, 22.93-meter wide and 11.63-meter deep. The total tonnage registered is 11,825 tons. At 2:19 on November 25, 1992, this ship set sail from Hong Kong to Zhangjiagang.
　　　The collided "M/V Shangwei12138" involved in this case is a trawlboat made of steel. Its total tonnage is IS5 ton. It is 29-meter long, 6.6-meter wide and 3.7-meter deep. This ship registered at the fishing port of Shangwei on June 4, 1992. The ship-owner is Zhong Xiaoyuan, the party on the opposition. After that, the fisherboat had never registered to change its name or purpose. On November 21, 1992, the Anti-smuggle Office of Zhuhai (hereinafter referred to as Anti-smuggle Office), the party on the opposition, requisitioned it for suppressing smuggle on sea, and changed "M/V Shanwei12138" into "M/V Gongbian001". There were 21 persons when setting sail from Xiangzhou of Zhuhai, including four fishermen, four armed soldiers, two persons for assisting to suppress smuggle and one family (female). The witness made by the fishermen and armed soldiers made it sure that the name brand had never been hung on the fisherboat all along.
　　　According to the fishermen on "M/V Shanwei12138", at 3:00 on November 25, 1992, "M/V Shanwei12138" arrived at the water area around Dangan Island. At 5:00, the fisherboat's position was determined as 22°08N/ 114°31'E approximately. Then, a ship was found to sail toward the larboard of the fisherboat, two searchlights in white, the searchlight on starboard and several other searchlights in yellow being seen. It could be seen on the radar that a bright spot moved eastward. "M/V Shanwei12138" sailed toward northward by west to hold up the ship for inspection. A lot of containers were found on board when the searchlight irradiated on the deck. The hull was in black-gray and the platform for steering was in white. At the moment that "M/V Shanwei12138" transited its fore, the ship turned to left and its fore collided at the engine room on larboard of "M/V Shanwei12138". "M/V Shanwei12138" shut down at once. That ship turned to left suddenly and its fore collided at the larboard of "M/V Shanwei12138". Then the ship slid toward the stern of "M/V Shanwei12138" by keeping close to the hull of "M/V Shanwei12138". The seawater flooded into the engine room of "M/V Shanwei12138", for the collided part was broken. The stern fell into the sea whereas the fore turned up. Soon the hull of "M/V Shanwei12138" sank and all person on board fell into the sea with the fisherboat. The ship causing the accident did not stop for salvage and sail eastward continuously.
　　　It is indicated in the report on inspection to the ships with maritime affairs (hereinafter referred to as the Report) which was worked out by a certain observation station affiliated to the navy of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (hereinafter referred to as observation station) on December 28, 1992, and was provided to the Harbor Supervision of Guangzhou: At 5:13 on November 25, 1992, a police boat marked as 036 signified by the bright spot on the radar was at the position of 22°09′09″N/114°31′05″E and overlapped with another bright spot signifying a foreign trader marked as 847; At 5:20, the bright spot marked as 036 disappeared at the position which was 14 sea miles far away from the observation station. In the Report, there were other records on the position of another seven ships sailing westward to enter the Dangan watercourse or Hong Kong, excepting the foreign trader sailing eastward marked as 847. But there were not the recorded on the position of other ships sailing eastward from Hong Kong in the report. On February 10, 1993, the observer of the observation station who was on duty on November 25 attested at the Harbor Supervision of Guangzhou: "There were some other ships in the water area around Dangan Island while the collision happened. All ships observed at the radar sailed westward except the foreign trader colliding the police boat."
　　　According to the radar observation record from 4:16 to 8:00 on November 25, 1992, provided by VTC of Hong Kong, there was another container ship "M/V Barzan" (marked as W500) sailed eastward from the watercourse of Hong Kong on that day except "M/V Trade Expansion" belonged to the applicant of retrial (marked as W448).
　　　"M/V Barzan" is a Qatar-registered container and its port of registry is Doha. The ship is 183.2-meter long and the total tonnage registered is 20,526 tons. This ship set sail from Hong Kong at 3:14 on November 25, 1992 and the destination is Kaohsiung. The record to this ship provided by VTC shows: This ship is at the position of 22°10′N/114°26′E with the course 101° and the speed16 knots at 5:00; The ship passed the water area where the maritime affairs happened from 5:14 to 5:30; During this period, the ship is at the position of 22°09′N/114°31′E with the course 102° and the speed 16.1 knots at 5:18, at the position of 22°09′N/114°32′E with the course 103° and the speed 16.1 knots at 5:20, at the position of 22°09′N/114°33′E with the course 061° which is turned to left more than 40° and the speed 13.3 knots at 5:26, and returns to the previous course gradually with the speed over 15 knots.
　　　It is indicated in the report on maritime affairs submitted to Kaohsiung by the captain of "M/V Barzan" on November 26, 1992, that the chief mate of "M/V Barzan" found a boat close to the fore of "M/V Barzan" at 5:25 on November 25 and changed to control the rudder by hand and turned the rudder. The boat brushed past the larboard of "M/V Barzan" at 5:27 on November 25. "M/V Barzan" was at the position of 22°09′N/114°34′E at that time. The captain found the hull shaky and found the boat close to the stern on the platform for steering at 5:30.
　　　Among the twenty-one persons falling into the sea, fifteen persons were rescued by American warship during the period from 7:20 to 7:45 on November 25, five persons died and one person was declared to die. It is at the position of 22°09′N/114°33′E that the American warship rescued those persons.
　　　British navy ship "M/V Peacock" took part in the rescue in that water area from 8:50 to 19:45. It searched against the direction toward which the floatage floated and found the headstream from which diesel oil spilt continuously at 16:51. A new sunken boat was detected and located at the position of 22°09′N/114°34′E by GPS. Later it was located at the position of 22°09′N/114°34′E by Weixin Maritime Affairs Engineering Company of Hong Kong and Global Company On Geography Prospecting With Electronic Instruments.
　　　On November 25, 1992, the morning light in the water area where the maritime affairs happened was at 6:17, the sunrise at 6:41, and the moonrise at 7:19 (the moonset on the previous day at 17:29). It was a dark night without moon when the maritime affair happened. The wind direction was northward and the wind power was at 2-3 level. The time of smooth current was about 30 minutes during the period of low tide at 4:40 and about 50 minutes during the period of high tide at 11:40. The most velocity of flow was 0.6 to 0.8 knots during the period of flood tide. The general velocity of ocean current in winter was 0.5 to 0.6 knots and the direction was southwestward.
　　　"M/V Trade Expansion" arrived at Zhangjiagang on November 30, 1992. The Harbor Supervision there investigated the ship for maritime affair from December 1 to 5, taking photos for its larboard, and worked out the record of inspecting the scene on December 2. It was indicated in the record that there were some scrapes off and on in the about-100-meter-long range from the backside of the larboard to the gangway, especially at the middle part of the hull. Among those scrapes, the one in the length of 7-8 meters 3.5-4.5 meters above the waterline on the hull was serious. The cover of paint had been scraped so that the layers in gray, yellow and red were shown up. The black straight one 0.9 meters above the water appeared at the middle of the hull and disappeared gradually at the gangway. The Harbor Supervision of Zhangjiagang collected two samples from the damaged part and undamaged part respectively. After being inspected with the infrared spectrum and the infrared microscope by the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou on January 9, 1993, and compared with the paint sample provided by the ship-owner of "M/V Shanwei12138", it was concluded that the component in the paint collected from "M/V Trade Expansion" is same with the swatch for comparison.
　　　In the course of rehearing, the Supreme People's Court consigned five experts on maritime affairs from Dalian Maritime Affairs University to checkup technically. It was indicated in the report: It could be understood that the place where the boat sank should be northeastward of the place where the survivors were rescued in terms of the situation of wind and current at that time. The place where the survivors were rescued and the place where "M/V Peacock" found the sunken ship spilling diesel oil continuously were accordant with the situation at that time. According to the statement about the visibility provided by some people, the eyeable distance was 5 sea miles or so. The time of collision should not be at 5:13 because it would take about 18 to 20 minutes from the moment that the people on "M/V Shanwei12138" saw the light emitted from the ship at 5:00 to the moment of collision. Therefore, the collision should happen later. "M/V Trade Expansion" did not turn its course form 5:10 to 5:16, which was not accordant with the statement provided by the fishermen on "M/V Shanwei12138" that the ship turned to left suddenly. If it was "M/V Trade Expansion" collided "M/V Shanwei12138", those people should see another ship ("M/V Barzan") passing after falling into the sea. But they did not see. If it was at the position of 22°09′N/114°34′E that "M/V Trade Expansion" collided "M/V Shanwei12138", the place where "M/V Shanwei12138" sank should be at the southwest position considering the various facts mentioned above. It was impossible for "M/V Shanwei12138" to float 2.4 sea miles and sank at the actual place. Thus, the place where the collision happened should not at the position of 22°09′N/114°34′E. The left side of the fore of "M/V Trade Expansion" should be damaged seriously on account of its speed in 14-15 knots if it was "M/V Trade Expansion" collide "M/V Shanwei12138". In fact, there was no serious damage on that part, and the scrapes on "M/V Trade Expansion" were not very accordant with the ones on "M/V Shanwei12138". "M/V Barzan", namely, W500 marked in the record of VTC, had passed that water area and turned left, which was accordant with the statement provided by the people on "M/V Shanwei12138". The captain of "M/V Barzan" had affirmed this in his report on maritime affair. The statement in the report was accordant with the impersonal law that the place where the collision happened was northeast to the place where the fisherboat sank. "M/V Barzan" passed that water area later than "M/V Trade Expansion" so that the survivors of "M/V Shanwei12138" did not see a ship passing. The conclusion for the inspection is: 1. The evidences are lacking for affirming it is "M/V Trade Expansion" collided "M/V Shanwei12138"; 2. The possibility that "M/V Barzan" collided "M/V Shanwei12138" shall not be excluded.
　　　The party on the opposition brought an action to the Maritime Court of Guangzhou after the collision and asked for compensation. Zhong Xiaoyuan and the Anti-smuggle Office asked to enjoin the Trade Expansion Company to pay their damage; Su Xiangkao and other five people asked for the death loss, the spiritual damage and the property loss cause by the death of their families; Zhong Wu and other fourteen people asked for the property loss and the spiritual damage. The Maritime Court of Guangzhou divided into three separate cases in view of the different claims. It was decided in the judgement: "M/V Trade Expansion" violated Article 36 of Law of the People's Republic of China on Maritime Traffic Safety and collided with "M/V Gongbian001" at the position of 22°09′N/114°34′E at November 25, 1992, which resulted in the later sinking. Trade Expansion Company shall bear all the liability for personal injury and death and proper loss. The court decided:
　　　1. Trade Expansion Company shall pay the damage in the amount of RMB2,390,400 and HK$20,000 to Zhong Xiaoyuan, the damage in the amount of RMB226,420 and HK$34,276 to Anti-smuggle Office, and the relevant interest (counted from February 23, 1993, to the day of payment at the current deposit rate prescribed by Chinese People's Bank to the corporation in the same period).
　　　2. Trade Expansion Company shall pay the death loss in the amount of RMB800,000 to the families of Su Xiangkao and Su Qirong respectively, the death loss in the amount of RMB384,000 to the family of Li Xing, the death loss in the amount of RMB435,896 to the family of Liu Yaoxiang, and the property loss in the amount of RMB 1,000 to the families of every decedents respectively.
　　　3. Trade Expansion Company shall pay the treatment fee and the spiritual damage in the amount of RMB10,000 to the survivors Zhong Jiarong, Zhong Jiazhong, Su Hua, Lu Zhihua, Zhong Caibao, etc. respectively, the spiritual damage in the amount of RMB5,000 to the survivors Zhong Muhuo, Su Zuwang, Su Wang , Xu Peng, Liu Guobao, Liang Fuming, Mao Xiangwu, Cai Ji, etc. respectively, and the property loss in the amount of RMB1,000 to everyone respectively.
　　　4. The cost of three cases are RMB30,782, RMB31460, RMB7,043, and shall be borne by Trade Expansion Company.
　　　Trade Expansion Company refused to accept and submitted its appeal petition to the Higher People's Court of Guangdong. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong held: "M/V Gongbian001" is a ship carrying out official duty in the water area of China. According to the record submitted by the observation station and the radar observation record of VTC, together with the log of "M/V Trade Expansion", it could affirm the ship marked as 847 by the observation station is "M/V Trade Expansion". According to the record submitted by the observation station and the witness provided by the sailors on "M/V Gongbian001", it also could affirm the ship marked as 036 by the observation station is "M/V Gongbian001". It is indicated in the record submitted by the observation station that it was at the position of 22°09′N/114°34′E that "M/V Trade Expansion" and "M/V Gongbian001" collided at 5:13. And "M/V Gongbian001" sank at 5:20. "M/V Trade Expansion" sailed eastward continuously after causing the accident. The hull of "M/V Trade Expansion" was black and its platform for steering was white. There were some containers on its board. All facts above are accordant with the description provided by the sailors on "M/V Gongbian001". The record of inspection from the Harbor Supervision of Zhangjiagang indicated that there was two new scrapes on the larboard of "M/V Trade Expansion". The inspection from the Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou revealed that the component in the paint collected from "M/V Trade Expansion" is same with the paint of "M/V Gongbian001". The above facts show that it is well-founded to determine "M/V Trade Expansion" is the ship causing accident. Those evidences submitted by Trade Expansion Company are not enough to reverse the decision of first instance. And Trade Expansion Company could not submit authentic evidence to prove the ship marked as W500 was "M/V Barzan". Thus, it lacks enough reason to deny "M/V Trade Expansion" was the ship causing accident. The appeal claims of Trade Expansion Company shall not be supported. It is proper in the decision of first instance to affirm the facts clearly and apply for the law correctly. Hence, the appeal shall be dismissed and the decision of first instance shall be upheld. The cost of the appeal shall be borne by Trade Expansion Company.
　　　Trade Expansion Company refused to accept the above judgement as final and appealed to retrial. The appeal petition is based on the following reasons: 1. The facts affirmed in the judgement of first instance are unclear. (1)The party on the opposition submitted inveracious evidence to the court of first instance. It is not accordant with the fact although the report provided by the observation station and the witness held that the ship causing accident must be "M/V Trade Expansion" because it was the only ship sailing eastward at that time. It could be proved with enough evidence that the Qatar-registered container "M/V Barzan" marked as W500 by Hong Kong VTC was sailing from Hong Kong eastward to Kaohsiung when the maritime affair happened. And it had collided with a boat near the place where the boat sank at 5:27 on November 25, 1992. (2) Trade Expansion Company had submitted enough evidence to the court of first instance in order to prove the ship marked as W500 by VTC was "M/V Barzan". On the record of VTC, "M/V Barzan" was marked as "BAR01" before 4:26 on November 25 and was marked as W500 after 4:28.The track line of "BAR01" and W500 is continuous. If W500 is not "M/V Barzan", where did it sail after 4:26? And where did W500 come from before 4:28? Furthermore, according to the report of maritime affair written by the captain of "M/V Barzan", its position from November 25 to 27 was same with the relevant record of W500 at 5:27. The original copy of the report of maritime affair is filed in the Court of Kaohsiung and is valid after being notarized by the court. In the course of the second hearing, even the authorized attorney of the party on the opposition had to admit the authenticity of this copy. However, the judgement did not mention that report at all. (3) The movement of the current is regular. The current at that place moves southwestward at that time. The place where "M/V Barzan" collided is in the upper reaches of the place where the boat sank and the survivors were rescued. The place at which the bright spots overlapped and disappeared on the radar is in the lower reaches 3 sea miles away from the place where the survivors were rescued. It is a very simple truth that the sunken boat and those people are unable to float 3 sea miles against the current. It is contrary to science to conclude that the evidences submitted by the appellant are not enough to reverse the decision of first instance considering the complex situation in that water area. (4) It is illegal for Anti-smuggle Office to suppress smuggle with the fisherboat. 2. The application of law is improper in the judgement. (1) The party on the opposition denied the report of maritime affair written by the captain of "M/V Barzan" which had been notarized following the procedure prescribed by law without any evidence. It has violated Article 67 of Chapter 6 of Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China for the court not to accept the report as evidence. 2. It is not permitted legally to accept the evidence without any original or authentic copy of the report provided by the observation station. 3. Law of the People's Republic of China on Maritime Traffic Safety is an administrative law on maritime traffic safety without the stipulation to differentiate the liability for collision and the civil liability. Since China is the state party, Convention on the International Regulation for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972) shall apply in this case no matter "M/V Shanwei12138" is fisherboat or the ship carrying out official duty to settle the dispute over collision. But the court enjoined "M/V Trade Expansion" to bear all liability for collision by applying Law on Maritime Traffic Safety, which is a serious mistake on the application of law.
　　　Zhong Xiaoyuan, the party on the opposition, replies: 1. The record provided by the observation station shows that W500 was one sea mile away from "M/V Shanwei12138" when the bright spots on the radar overlapped. And Hong Kong VTC had never affirmed W500 was "M/V Barzan". "M/V Trade Expansion" could be proved to be the ship causing accident by various evidences, including the fishermen's witness, the report of inspection from Harbor Supervision of Guangzhou, the evidence provided by Hong Kong VTC, the evidence of inspection from Harbor Supervision of Zhangjiagan, the report on paint test from Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou. Therefore, it is proper to enjoin Trade Expansion Company to bear the civil liability. 2. The certification for the notarization to the report on maritime affair issued by the Court of Kaohsiung could merely prove it was the court that provided the report. And there is not statement about the collision with a boat in the report. 3. The place where the American warship rescued the survivors is 0.8 sea miles far away from the place where the bright spot disappeared on the radar. It lacks evidence to claim "floating 3 sea miles against the current".
　　　Anti-smuggle Office, the party on the opposition, replies: 1. Anti-smuggle Office requisitioned "M/V Shanwei12138" for suppressing smuggle on sea in terms of the instruction from the superior. Its clerk commanded on board when suppressing smuggle. The name of the boat was changed into "M/V Gongbian001". The above facts accord with the tenet and function of Anti-smuggle Office. "M/V Gongbian001" is the ship carrying out official duty in Chinese water area. It does not come into existence to requisition fisherboat for suppressing smuggle illegally at all. 2. Various evidences concerned have proved that it is "M/V Trade Expansion" that is the ship causing the sinking of "M/V Gongbian001". Trade Expansion Company denied the fact on purpose to shift off the jural liability. 3. Trade Expansion Company lies that Hong Kong VTC had affirmed W500 is "M/V Barzan" and translated its notice on maritime affair wrongly deliberately in order to shift off the jural liability. Hong Kong VTC has never issued any document to affirm that W500 is "M/V Barzan". 4. There is not any fault on "M/V Gongbian011" for sinking when carrying out official duty. It is a serious accident that "M/V Trade Expansion" got away from the scene regardless the safety of other boat and the sailors, which resulted in the death of six people. The accident could not be regarded as the usual collision accident.
　　　The party on the opposition Su Xiangkao, Zhong Wu and other nineteen people reply: 1. Among the survivors, Zhong Wu, Mai Yong and Liang Fuming stated that the fisherboat was collided at 10 o'clock and sank ten minutes later when answering the questions asked by Hong Kong Maritime Police and the captain of "M/V Starling" respectively on the different time and at the different place as soon as being rescued. It is the important evidence. 2. Considering other evidences concerned, only "M/V Trade Expansion" has the qualification to collide "M/V Gongbian001" to sink. 3.The court has dismissed the claims of Trade Expansion Company mentioned in its appeal petition. In sum, "M/V Trade Expansion" is the ship causing accident.
　　　The Supreme People's Court holds after rehearing the case:
　　　All evidences for proving the collision between "M/V Shanwei12138" and "M/V Trade Expansion" in this case are indirect evidences. The indirect evidences could be affirmed as the basis only when they verify each other. Otherwise, they could not be affirmed.
　　　The scientific and objective certification on tidal current in the water area where the maritime affair happened on November 25, 1992, provided by Ocean Information Center at South China Sea of State Ocean Bureau and other evidences verify each other. The parties concerned do not have doubt on it. Therefore, the certification shall be accepted as the evidence. It could not be accepted that the situation of the ocean current in where the accident happened is complex due to the lack of enough evidence.
　　　The American warship "Starling" reported its position is 22°09′N/114°33′E when rescuing the survivors, which is the original evidence. The American warship rescued fifteen survivors within twenty-five minutes, which shows that the range in which the people fell into sea is not very far away. The fact accords with the witness provided by the armed soldier falling into sea. According to the witness provided by the captain of British naval ship "Peacock" taking part in the rescue, the method used to search the new sunken boat is scientific and objective. Since there was no any other ship sinking in the water area at that day or before, it could be affirmed that the sunken boat is "M/V Shanwei12138" at the position of 22°09′N/114°34′E.
　　　The record of inspecting the scene on "M/V Trade Expansion" and the relevant photos taken by Harbor Supervision of Zhangjiagang are objective and timely. The parties concerned did not have doubt on the above evidences. According to the report on maritime affair of "M/V Shanwei12138" and the witness provided by the fishermen, "M/V Shanwei12138" sank soon after being collided by the ship causing accident because the seawater flooded into the engine room on the larboard. The experts analyzed that it should has obvious scrape on the left side of the fore of the ship causing accident. However, there is no obvious scrape on the left side of the fore of "M/V Trade Expansion" according to the record and the photos. The parties on the opposition also admit the fact. Therefore, the fact shall be affirmed. The paint scrape on the middle of the hull of "M/V Trade Expansion" is not enough to indicate that it is "M/V Trade Expansion" that collided "M/V Shanwei12138" and resulted in the sinking.
　　　The conclusion written in the report on the paint test provided by Public Security Bureau of Guangzhou is that "containing the component same with the paint swatch" instead of "the component is same", which could not prove that the paint on the damaged part of "M/V Trade Expansion" is the paint on "M/V Shanwei12138" if it does not belong to "M/V Trade Expansion".
　　　The track of the bright spot marked as 036 in the report provided by the observation station does not accord with the course and the speed stated by the fishermen after "M/V Shanwei12138" being collided from overlapping to disappearing. During the nine hours or so after setting sail, "M/V Shanwei12138" recorded one approximate position only at 5:00. There is no accurate time and record on the change of the course and the speed.Therefore, it is random for the observation station to pick out a bright spot from a lot of ones on the radar and to record, which could not be the effective evidence. It is indicated in the record provided by Hong Kong VTC: the ship marked as W500 sailed eastward after passing the place where the bright spot marked as 036 overlapped at 5:17 and the place where the bright spot disappeared at 5:20. The distance between the two places is less than one cable length. The report indicates that only one foreign trader set sail eastward from Hong Kong during the period from 1:00 to 7:32 on that day, which is incompatible with the record of VTC and the report on maritime affair of "M/V Barzan". The report is not the original record and is not checked with the original record in terms of the stipulation of law. In sum, the report shall not be accepted because the self-contradiction and the incompatibility with other evidences.
　　　There is no scrape on "M/V Trade Expansion". The paint collected from the larboard of "M/V Trade Expansion" is not same with the paint on "M/V Shanwei12138" incompletely. 'M/V Trade Expansion" did not turn left or slow down when passing the water area where the accident happened. The situation of the place of collision and the place where the boat sank and where the survivors were rescued claimed by the parties on the opposition does not accord with the tidal current on that time and at the place. There was another container ship setting sail from Hong Kong and passing that water area when the accident happened. According to the above facts, it shall be found:
　　　The evidence for proving "M/V Trade Expansion" is the ship causing accident is not enough. It is a defacto mistake and shall be corrected.
　　　The parties on the opposition claim that the ship causing accident set sail from Boliao East watercourse of Hong Kong before 3:00 on that day and "M/V Shanwei12138" did not shut down at once when replying. It shall not be accepted because of the lack of enough evidence.
　　　The parties on the opposition who claim that "M/V Trade Expansion" is the ship colliding "M/V Shanwei12138" to sink shall bear the relevant onus probandi. Otherwise, its claim shall not be supported.
It is improper for the court to enjoin the applicant of retrial Trade Expansion Company to bear the personal damage and the property loss resulted from the collision "M/V Shanwei12138" suffered and shall be corrected. It is a defacto mistake and is inaccurate on the application of law.
　　　In sum, the Supreme People's Court decides as follow pursuant to Item 2 and Item 3 of Clause 1 of Article 153 of Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China on May 18, 1999:
　　　1. The three copies of the civil case judgement of second instance on this case by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong shall be withdrawn;
　　　2. The three copies of the civil case judgement of first instance on this case by the Maritime Court of Guangzhou shall be withdrawn;
　　　3. The claims of the parties on the opposition, Zhong Xiaoyuan and Anti-smuggle Office, shall be dismissed;
　　　4. The claims of the parties on the opposition, Su Xiangkao, Su Qirong, Li Xing, Chen Hua, Liu Yaoxiang, etc., shall be dismissed;
　　　5. The claims of the parties on the opposition, Zhong Wu, Zhong Muhuo, Su Zuwang, Su Wang, Su Hua, Xu Peng, Zhong Caibao, Zhong Jiarong, Zhong Jiazhong, Lu Zhihua, Cai Ji, Liu Guobao, Liang Fuming, Mao Xiangwu, etc., shall be dismissed.
　　　The cost of first instance and second instance shall be jointly borne by the parites on the opposition in each case. Whereas the families of Su Xiangkao, Su Qirong, Li Xing, Chen Hua, Liu Yaoxiang, etc. had died in the maritime affair and their family life are difficult, it is decided to exempt the proportion they shall bear. The cost of second instance that Zhong Wu, Zhong Muhuo, Su Zuwang, Su Wang, Su Hua, Xu Peng, Zhong Caibao, Zhong Jiarong, Zhong Jiazhong, Lu Zhihua, Cai Ji, Liu Guobao, Liang Fuming, Mao Xiangwu shall bear is exempted.