Recently, Haikou Maritime Court has successfully concluded a series of non-litigation maritime administrative enforcement cases through efforts in locating people and property concerned and explaining applicable legal provisions. The amount effectively enforced reaches up to CNY 104,000. It has supported the law-based administration by the maritime law enforcement authorities of Hainan, promoted the orderly and healthy growth of Hainan’s marine economy, and facilitated the construction of the free trade zone and free trade port.

In January 2018, the “Yue XX No.1” vessel owned by a building materials company in Dongguan was found to have committed multiple offences when she sailed to Qinglan Harbour, Wenchang, Hainan, including failure to give inbound and outbound information as required, navigating beyond approved areas, hiring uncertificated crew members, and failure to man the vessel up to standards. The Maritime Safety Administration of Qinglan thus imposed maritime administrative penalties respectively on the company and its personnel concerned. The company and its personnel liable did not apply for administrative reconsideration or initiate administrative litigation within the statutory time limit, and did not honour the effective administrative decision upon the maritime authorities’ notice. The Maritime Safety Administration of Qinglan then duly applied to Haikou Maritime Court for enforcement. Through examination, Haikou Maritime Court ruled in favour of the enforcement and referred the cases to the Enforcement Bureau.

After receiving the cases, the enforcement judge immediately gave enforcement notices and orders to report property to the enforcement subjects while initiating online inquiries. The subject matters of the cases were not significant, but enforcement was not easy as most of the enforcement subjects were crew members whose domiciles were scattered across the country and who were serving on vessels most of the time, plus that the company and the vessel concerned were not located in Hainan. After carefully going through available clues, the enforcement judge took the company domiciled in Dongguan, Guangdong and the vessel registered in Dongguan as a breakthrough for the investigation. The enforcement judge took a trip to Dongguan for field investigation, only to find that the company was not operating at the registered domicile anymore and that no enforcement subjects were available in the registered office of the vessel. To make things worse, the vessel was not actually operating as it had been attached by multiple courts. Moreover, no information was found on the company’s registered land, property or any other real estate. The enforcement judge duly served a consumption restriction order on the company and listed it as a dishonest debtor, sent notice of assistance in enforcement to competent authorities, and attached the vessel subordinate to the other courts.

Although no substantial progress was made, the enforcement judge did not give up easily. Instead, he again went through relevant information meticulously and found that one of the enforcement subjects, Wang, whose domicile was in Wuhan, Hubei, had lived at a certain address in Haikou, Hainan. The enforcement judge immediately looked into the property registration of the address and conducted a field investigation. It was found that the property was owned by Wang’s wife who was still living there. However, on multiple trips the enforcement judge was not able to see Wang as he had been working away from home. Under the pressure, Wang and his wife took the initiative to contact the enforcement judge to seek a solution, but at the same time expressed their difficulty in understanding or accepting the administrative penalties. Through over 20 phone calls, the enforcement judge fully explained to Wang applicable legal provisions. Wang eventually realized the gravity of his offence and the severe consequences he would face if he refused to honour the effective penalty decision. He then willingly provided the court with the phone number to reach the person in charge of the company and assisted in the communication. The person in charge had thought the penalties could have been avoided if he kept evading and putting it off, but he didn’t expect the enforcement judge from Haikou Maritime Court to be so persistent and able to track him down with few clues. Eventually, the person in charge showed up in the office of the Maritime Safety Administration of Qinglan to pay up the penalties for the series of cases, and promised to strictly comply with applicable regulations in the company’s future operations. The non-litigation maritime administrative enforcement cases were then successfully concluded.