一批豆油从阿根廷和巴西装船后由“高山玛丽亚”轮运往中国广州新沙港。阿勒颇航运有限公司（ALEPPO SHIPPING LTD）作为该轮的所有人承运该批货物。货物到岸后，出入境检验检疫局派员监管卸货，并按岸罐计重，出具重量证书，比提单记载的总重量短少128.725吨。广西人保作为货物承保人，支付了保险赔款，向阿勒颇航运有限公司（ALEPPO SHIPPING LTD）进行代位求偿。

阿勒颇航运有限公司（ALEPPO SHIPPING LTD）委托我所杨运福、袁金松律师处理该案。在庭上，我方律师直击要害，充分论证了对方证据不足的问题，得到法官认可并驳回原告诉讼请求。我方律师指出，岸罐计重时，货物已经脱离委托人掌管，超出了涉案货物的承运责任期间。另外，岸罐重量检验证书未经承运人同意，不具有证明散装液体货物交货数量的效力。法院认可我方观点，认为原告举证不能，驳回其诉讼请求。

      A batch of soybean oil was loaded onboard MV “Alpine Maria” from Argentina and Brazil and sailed to Xinsha Port in Guangzhou, China. Aleppo Shipping Ltd (a Libyan company) was the owner of the ship and the carrier of the cargo.

       After the cargo arrived at the port, the Exit-Entry Inspection and Quarantine Bureau dispatched its staff to supervise the discharge of the cargo. The goods were measured by bank tank, and the weight certificate was issued. It was 128.725 tons less than the total weight recorded in the bill of lading. PICC Guangxi, who underwrote the cargo and paid the insurance compensation, claimed to exercise the right of subrogation against Aleppo Shipping Ltd.

      Aleppo Shipping Ltd entrusted lawyers Colin Y F Yang and Yuan Jinsong of our law firm to handle this case. On court, our lawyers hit the nail on the head and voiced their argument that the opponent's evidence was insufficient. The court recognized our lawyers’ argument and rejected the plaintiff's claims. Our lawyers pointed out that during the time of bank tank measurement, the cargo were out of the client’s control, and beyond the period of responsibility for carriage. In addition, the bank tank measurement inspection certificate without being approved by the carrier did not have the effect of proving the quantity of liquid cargo delivered in bulk. The court accepted our views and judged that the plaintiff could not adduce sufficient evidence and dismissed their claim.