China seizes Japanese cargo ship over pre-war debt

[Ray]

China seizes Japanese cargo ship over pre-war debt

China's seizure of a Japanese cargo ship over a pre-war debt could hit business ties, Japan's top government spokesman has warned.

Shanghai Maritime Court said it had seized the Baosteel Emotion, owned by Mitsui OSK Lines, on Saturday.

It said the seizure related to unpaid compensation for two Chinese ships leased in 1936.

The Chinese ships were later used by the Japanese army and sank at sea, Japan's Kyodo news agency said.

"The Japanese government considers the sudden seizure of this company's ship extremely regrettable," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said on Monday.

"This is likely to have, in general, a detrimental effect on Japanese businesses working in China."

Shrine row
The owners of the shipping company, identified by Kyodo as Zhongwei Shipping, sought compensation after World War Two and the case was reopened at a Shanghai court in 1988, China's Global Times said.

The court ruled in 2007 that Mitsui had to pay 190 million yuan ($30.5m, £18m) as compensation for the two ships leased to Daido, a firm later part of Mitsui, Global Times and Kyodo said.

Mitsui appealed against the decision, but it was upheld in 2012, Kyodo said.

Kyodo said this appeared to be the first time that a Japanese company asset had been confiscated as war-linked compensation.

The seizure comes with ties between Tokyo and Beijing severely strained amid rows over East China Sea islands that both claim and rumbling historical issues.

Earlier this year, a court in China for the first time accepted a case filed by Chinese citizens seeking compensation from Japanese firms over forced labour during World War Two.

Japan has always held that the issue of war-related compensation was settled by a 1972 agreement between the two sides when ties were normalised.

But now for the first time, a Chinese court has ignored that agreement - and the Chinese government appears to be giving full support, says the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Tokyo.

It is another sign of just how low relations between China and Japan have sunk, our correspondent adds.

On Monday, meanwhile, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sent a ritual offering to the Yasukuni Shrine to mark the spring festival.

Yasukuni is where the souls of Japan's war dead are enshrined, including war criminals - and it is seen by regional neighbours as a symbol of Japan's past militarism.

China filed a protest with Japan on Saturday after a Japanese minister visited the shrine.

BBC News - China seizes Japanese cargo ship over pre-war debt

********************************************************************

More tensions being created.

If the issue of war-related compensation was settled by a 1972 agreement between the two sides, then China has violated the Agreement.

It means that any Agreement with China will always be a piece of trash.

 

[asianobserve]

How would China react of Westerners impound Chinese vessels around the World for its massive pre-WW2 bonds default?

 

[angeldude13]

What are they trying to prove by doing all these silly things??

 

[bose]

No wonders why the Chinese are hated most by all the south asians nationalities... Cheap Chinese mentality...

Japan must retaliate and detain few Chinese cargo ships...

 

[Kaalapani]

What are they trying to prove by doing all these silly things??

Whose idea was that.Even kindergarten students will not behave like that.

 

[Voldemort]

Just shows that China can never be trusted. They are doing their best to start wars with India and japan.

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

Just shows that China can never be trusted. They are doing their best to start wars with India and japan.

and then they will say its japan and india who started the war and we chinese believe in piece ,so full of contrast

 

[amoy]

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/855776.shtml

A Shanghai court on Saturday ordered the detention of an ore carrier owned by the Japanese Mitsui Group at Majishan port in Shengsi, Zhejiang Province to enforce a compensation ruling for the loss of two Chinese freighters from the 1930s, the Xinhua News Agency reported on Sunday.

The ship Baosteel Emotion from Mitsui OSK Lines, a branch company of Mitsui Group, was detained to compensate for the losses of the cargo ships Shun Feng and Xin Taiping, rented by Mitsui OSK from Chinese owner Chen Shuntong in 1930s.

Mitsui stopped paying rent for the two ships after 1937 when Japan declared war on China and never returned the two ships.

Chen's family kept seeking compensation after the war. The case was reopened in 1988 when Chen's grandsons filed suit at Shanghai Maritime Court.

The court in 2007 judged the two ships illegally occupied by the Japanese company after its suspension of rent payments in 1937 and ruled Mitsui Group pay 2.9 billion yen ($28.3 million) compensation.

It was the first time China has seized Japanese corporate property for postwar compensation, Tokyo Shimbun commented.

Alongside suing Japanese companies for exploiting Chinese laborers during World War II, the two legal approaches were "attacks" on Japan by China, the paper argued.

The seizure of Japanese property in this case set a dangerous precedent for future compensation suits, Japanese broadcaster NHK worried.

Kang Jian, a lawyer representing wartime Chinese laborers, told the Global Times that although this was a commercial case involving a foreign company, a Chinese judicial department has the legal right to enforce a compensation ruling.

Li Zongyuan, deputy director of Museum of War of Chinese People's Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, told the Global Times the case was merely an economic dispute between two enterprises and shouldn't be over-read politically.

Chen family, who was once a top pre-WW2 maritime conglomerate, has every right to claim compensation. In the 1972 treaty only the STATE waived the claim of war reparations from Japan. Yet this case is a civil dispute btwn 2 companies (Zhongwei/ Chen Family vs. Mitsui/Daido).

 

[asianobserve]

Chinese court detains Japanese boat over unpaid damages - WORLD - Globaltimes.cn

Chen family, who was once a top pre-WW2 maritime conglomerate, has every right to claim compensation. In the 1972 treaty only the STATE waived the claim of war reparations from Japan. Yet this case is a civil dispute btwn 2 companies (Zhongwei/ Chen Family vs. Mitsui/Daido).

Then China should also pay for the pre-WW2 bonds it defaulted.

 

[amoy]

Then China should also pay for the pre-WW2 bonds it defaulted.

1. how is your alleged bonds relevant to this dispute btwn 2 firms - Chen vs. Mitsui?
2. feel free to open a new thread on the default which is unknown to me
3. has any lawsuit filed on the said bond default? This thread has indicated clearly

Chen's family kept seeking compensation after the war. The case was reopened in 1988 when Chen's grandsons filed suit at Shanghai Maritime Court.

 

[jalsa]

1. how is your alleged bonds relevant to this dispute btwn 2 firms - Chen vs. Mitsui?
2. feel free to open a new thread on the default which is unknown to me
3. has any lawsuit filed on the said bond default? This thread has indicated clearly

Why is China doing everything they can to damage relations with Japan? I think China wants to teach a lesson to Japan.

 

[amoy]

Why is China doing everything they can to damage relations with Japan? I think China wants to teach a lesson to Japan.

relations with Japan? a company Zhongwei/Chen family (Hong Kong residents) filed a suit against another company Mitsui (Japanese though). totally commercial... how is it related to state relations?

the losses of the cargo ships Shun Feng and Xin Taiping, rented by Mitsui OSK from Chinese owner Chen Shuntong in 1930s.

Mitsui stopped paying rent for the two ships after 1937 when Japan declared war on China and never returned the two ships.

 

[asianobserve]

1. how is your alleged bonds relevant to this dispute btwn 2 firms - Chen vs. Mitsui?
2. feel free to open a new thread on the default which is unknown to me
3. has any lawsuit filed on the said bond default? This thread has indicated clearly

You do not know about Chinese bond default? I think there's already a thread here about that.

 

[asianobserve]

Here's the link: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/china/56557-china-could-owe-america-one-trillion-dollars.html

 

[amoy]

You do not know about Chinese bond default? I think there's already a thread here about that.

No I had no idea until u enlighten me. Q's of common sense -

1) do u agree Chen Family has the right to claim compensation from Mitsui OSK no matter how much bond China defaulted?

2) if a Japanese owes u money personally will u relinquish the debt for the sake of Malay-Japanese state relationshp?

 

[asianobserve]

No I had no idea until u enlighten me. Q's of common sense -

1) do u agree Chen Family has the right to claim compensation from Mitsui OSK no matter how much bond China defaulted?

Agree.

2) if a Japanese owes u money personally will u relinquish the debt for the sake of Malay-Japanese state relationshp?

Maybe not, which makes the defaulted bond issue relevant. Anyway, what I'm saying is that China should stop acting so self-centered and act fairly. If debts before WW2 are ought to be paid to a Chinese company then debt before WW2 owed to foreign investors should also be paid to them.

 

[Compersion]

The PRC foreign office and PRC leadership has its finger prints on this. That is what the Japs are saying. And that means this has a multi-purpose and not only a "civil suit" to cater for economic injustice.

But now for the first time, a Chinese court has ignored that agreement - and the Chinese government appears to be giving full support, says the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Tokyo.

One can say it is fair play to the PRC since they are doing such things in areas where there is a vacuum that have grey areas a bit like the ADZ and even the Infiltration with India. The calculation is that there would not be a over-reaction and use of force but at most a heated response. But that plays well for the internal audience and also showcase PRC assertivness that corresponds to a leadership role in PRC foreign office and PRC leadership thinking. But the draw-fall for PRC foreign office and PRC leadership is that the image of PRC externally takes a huge beating - is it worth it.

With reference to the civil suit and its relationship with the 1972 agreement between the two sides when ties were normalized it is mentioned the courts "ignored". If it was not valid the courts ought to have considered it and made its reasoning why it was not relevant. Also someone mention if the Hong Kong citizens and Hong Kong company is involved why not involve the Hong Kong legal system - why not involve the Japanese legal system - why not involve the international legal system - why preference to PRC legal system - if it is a civil law the contract law will apply and what about force majeure did the PRC court ignore - if not what was the reasoning to overlap that. Also in contract law there are many other terms and conditions that apply and one needs to look at the actual contract and its impact from the war (a typical force majeure event) and 1972 agreement (since multi-party including states involvement).

Further what happened to the two ships. What is the compensation for - is it loss of rental income - is it financial loss due to ships being sunk. How were the ships sunk and what were the cargo ships used for at the time they were sunk. And who sunk the ships. Was any military - navy involved.

This is not a civil suit since the reasons why the ships got sunk overlaps into international law and multi-party state relations. When was it done and during which period.

But will the Japanese start slowly a technological denial scheme and economic actions onto PRC that is the better question.

Perhaps the PRC have the wish the Chinese population in Japan increases in size over the next few decades ... the Japanese are not silly and all this is only strengthening their resolve. They were happy being rich and now are looking at defense preparedness extensively and it is for reasons originating from PRC and North Korea.

But fair play to the PRC foreign office and PRC leadership they want to highlight this now for some reasons and they have every right. What is the worst that can come from this. The Japanese will think worse of PRC. That is already there.

Will other nations also think worse of PRC and in a certain way of PRC. Probably that is already there also.

It is worth it.

 

[amoy]

Mitsui OSK shall hire @Compersion to defend their case.

why not involve the Hong Kong legal system - why not involve the Japanese legal system - why not involve the international legal system - why preference to PRC legal system - if it is a civil law the contract law will apply and what about force majeure did the PRC court ignore - if not what was the reasoning to overlap that.

Your WHYs will certainly get clarified in Shanghai Maritime Court

 

[Compersion]

Mitsui OSK shall hire @Compersion to defend their case.



Your WHYs will certainly get clarified in Shanghai Maritime Court

There is no doubt that PRC foreign office and PRC leadership has its finger prints on this.

Post the judgement if you have a chance. Are you saying that it is still to be argued ... that implies that it is a "charge" and "accusation" and a "claim".

Also is there a reason for the post of the picture. Is that the size of the ships that were sunk - must have been non-military and non-state reasons and purely civil law related and non-force majeure considerations.

I was reading some place else that evolution of PRC court judgement is impressive and the reasoning is there. Would be great if you can get the judgement pertaining to this case and post it here (we can translate here using translation tools).

I am sure the PRC foreign office and PRC leadership thought that through ...

 

[amoy]

There is no doubt that PRC foreign office and PRC leadership has its finger prints on this.

Post the judgement if you have a chance. Are you saying that it is still to be argued ... that implies that it is a "charge"

I made a grammatical mistake - Mitsui shall HAVE hired u. FYI Mitsui OSK was involved in another similar suit with Continental / Lin Family, which was settled out of court in goodwill finally early 2013. But not much of luck with Chen Family hence the ship seizure.