George Naumof

Senior inspector

Romanian Naval Authority

gnaumof@rna.ro

 

 

 

Dear Professor Erik Rosaeg,

 

Many thanks for publishing my letters on the site.

 

After reading the letters sent by Mr. J.H.Gutierrez and Mr. J. E de Boer I want to add some comments to my previous observations.

 

I observed that Mr. Gutierrez expressed the same opinion as me, respectively: “to declare the physical receiver of LNG cargoes jointly and severally liable with the titleholder immediately before the discharge is not in line with the spirit of the wording of the HNS Convention”.

 

Also, I observed that Mr. de Boer has the same opinion regarding the source of information related to the titleholder, respectively: “I wonder whether the receiving state could not directly be informed by the titleholder immediately before discharge.”

 

Now I want to express my understanding upon few issues and consequently few conclusions.

 

At the moment of discharge of the LNG cargo, the State Party has to obtain information about the titleholder (correct and complete name and address) and about the cargo discharged in its port or terminal (correct and complete name and quantity). On the basis of this information, later on, the HNS Fund will issue an invoice for collecting the levy for the separate account for LNG. Therefore the State Party has a high responsibility in providing accurate information to an international institution, respectively the HNS Fund.

 

Similar to other taxation/contribution systems (customs, property, income, profit etc.), also the system of levies for HNS Fund accounts has to be based on the self declaration of the person liable to pay contributions. Therefore, in my opinion it is excluded any other variant to obtain information about the titleholder (from the receiver of LNG cargo, from the captain of the ship etc.).

 

At the moment of discharge of the LNG cargo, the titleholder knows only the quantity and whether the port/terminal is located on the territory of a State Party or of a non-State-Party. The titleholder does not know at that moment of discharge the amount of the levy he/she/it has to pay and, also, the date when this amount must be paid. Therefore, I wonder which bank is able to issue such guarantee letter for an unknown amount of money and for an unknown date of execution of the guarantee.

Similar judgment could be applied for insurance companies which could be requested to be the surety/provider of security for the titleholder.

 

In conclusion, I consider as inappropriate measures for the implementation of HNS Convention that:

·        the State Party to obtain information about the titleholder from the receiver of LNG cargo or from the captain of the ship or from other source than the titleholder, under self declaration and commitment to pay levies;

·        the responsibility of the titleholder to pay levies to be transferred to another person, as the receiver or other person who could be in a direct or indirect contractual relationship to the titleholder.

 

If will be the case to impose to the titleholder to find a surety/provider of security, then, in my opinion, this one could be a bank or an insurance company agreed previously by the HNS Fund.

 

For the uniform implementation of the HNS Convention I consider that it is necessary to be issued a guideline by IMO (Assembly/Legal Committee).

 

At the end, I want to draw up your attention and of other colleagues from the correspondence group on the possibility that the HNS Fund to be confronted with titleholders who, at the moment of the issuing of the invoice for levy, do not more exist or who, having or not limited liability as legal person, after receiving the invoice, declare their bankruptcy.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

George Naumof

Bucuresti, 25 July 2007