As mentioned in the email we also believe that the opposites request for the ROB documents is to assist in determining the impact of the fuel tank on the cargo As the fuel tank needs to be kept w

As mentioned in the email, we understand that the opposite party has requested the ROB documents to determine the impact of the fuel tank on the cargo, as the fuel tank needs to be kept warm during use or refueling.

Based on our observations from the GA, we have identified that the top side tanks of cargo hold No. 6&7 are the fuel tank No. 1 FOT P&S and No. 2 FOT P&S, and there are no fuel tanks around other cargo holds.

After reviewing the attached ROB records, we have inferred that the fuel in No. 1 FOT P&S was consumed during the voyage, and both No. 1 FOT P&S and No. 2 FOT P&S were refilled in Singapore during this voyage. While it is possible that the opposite party may request temperature records of the fuel tanks, we do not believe that the cargo was affected.

Furthermore, the receiver has not raised any concerns about the quality of the cargo in the top side of cargo holds No. 6&7 (near the fuel tanks) being worse than the bottom or other cargo holds. On the contrary, the receiver only claimed that the cargo in cargo hold No. 4 was worse than others. Additionally, our on-site inspection only found abnormal discoloration in cargo holds No. 2, 4, and 5.

The recorded temperature of the fuel tanks in the attached ROB documents is still lower than the temperature of the cargo. Therefore, we believe it is difficult to establish a causal relationship between the alleged cargo damage and the fuel tank.

Unless there are clear regulations on the use and warming of the fuel tank in the voyage instructions or charter party, we have not found any adverse factors for the shipowner in providing the attached documents to the opposite party