chenclaw

民間企業應了解之個人資料保護法修正重點 Key Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act That Private Enterprises Should Be Aware Of

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:03:18 GMT

民間企業應了解之個人資料保護法修正重點

Key Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act That Private Enterprises Should Be Aware Of

總統已於2025年11月11日公布修正「個人資料保護法」(下稱個資法)，施行日期尚待訂定。本次個資法之修正目的在於配合憲法法庭111年憲判字第13號判決要求，建立個資保護獨立監督機制即個人資料保護委員會（下稱個資會）以完足憲法保障人民之資訊隱私權保障，除有針對公部門使用個資為相關監管增修之外，就本次修法涉及民間企業（非公務機關，即非公務機關之自然人、法人或其他團體）之部分，謹就相關規範重點說明如下：

On 11 November 2025, the President promulgated the amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”), with the effective date to be announced. The purpose of this amendment is to comply with Constitutional Court Judgment, Hsien Pan Tze No. 13 of 2022, which requires the establishment of an independent supervisory authority for personal data protection—the Personal Data Protection Commission (“PDPC”)—in order to fully safeguard the constitutional right to informational privacy. In addition to strengthening the regulatory framework applicable to the use of personal data by public sector agencies, the amendments introduce several changes relevant to private-sector entities (i.e., non-public agencies, including natural persons, legal persons, or other organizations). The key points of the amendments concerning private enterprises are summarized below:

1. 個資事故通報及通知等義務

Obligations Regarding Personal Data Incident Notification and Reporting

(1) 對個資當事人之通知義務：原個資法僅規定民間企業為查明個資事故時，應通知當事人，因此實務上時有因各種因素而造成通知上的延遲，本次修法通知時點提前為於『知悉』有個資事故時，即應通知當事人。至於具體應通知個資當事人的內容及細部事項，尚待進一步規範。

Obligation to Notify Data Subjects: Under the previous PDPA, private-sector entities were only required to notify data subjects when investigating a personal data incident. In practice, this often resulted in delays in notification due to various factors. Under the amended PDPA, the timing for notification has been moved forward—private-sector entities must notify data subjects immediately upon becoming aware of a personal data incident. The specific content and detailed requirements for such notifications will be further stipulated in subsequent regulations.

(2) 對個資會之通報義務：對於符合一定通報範圍內的個資事件，民間機關應通報個資會，個資會並應轉知目的事業主管機關。

Obligation to Report to the PDPC: For personal data incidents falling within a specified reporting threshold, private-sector entities will be required to report such incidents to the PDPC. The PDPC, in turn, must forward the report to the competent authority overseeing the relevant industry.

針對個資事故，民間企業應採取即時有效之應變措施以防止事故之擴大，記載相關事實、影響、以採取之因應措施，並保存相關紀錄等。具體之應通知與應通報之內容、時限、範圍等相關事項則授權個資會訂定之。

Private-sector entities must adopt prompt and effective response measures to prevent the escalation of any personal data incident, document the relevant facts, impacts, and responsive actions taken, and retain the relevant records. The specific requirements regarding the content, timeframe, and scope of notifications to data subjects and reports to the PDPC will be prescribed by the PDPC.

如民間企業有違反就個資事故之通知當事人之義務，個資會將令限期改善，未改正即處罰鍰；如係違反個資事故之通報個資會義務，或應變措施、紀錄保存等義務者，則逕處罰鍰並得按次處罰。

If a private-sector entity violates its obligation to notify data subjects of a personal data incident, the PDPC will order the entity to remedy the violation within a specified period, and if it fails to do so, a fine will be imposed. In contrast, if the entity violates its obligation to report a personal data incident to the PDPC or fails to comply with its obligations relating to incident response measures or record retention, the PDPC may directly impose a fine and may continue to impose fines on a per-violation basis.

2. 修正行政檢查相關規定

Amendments to Administrative Inspection Provisions

細緻化對民間企業為行政檢查之相關規定，包括提供個資會干預程度不同之檢查方式，且增訂會同檢查機制，個資會得會同目的事業主管機關或其他有關機關進行檢查。並且授權個資會得就行政檢查作業之規劃、評估方式、考量因素及有賴其他機關協力之事項，得另訂辦法以為規範，

The amendments refine the rules governing administrative inspections of private-sector entities, including providing different inspection methods corresponding to varying levels of intervention by the PDPC. A joint-inspection mechanism has also been added, under which the PDPC may conduct inspections together with the competent industry authority or other relevant government agencies. In addition, the PDPC is authorized to formulate separate regulations governing the planning and evaluation methods for administrative inspections, the factors to be considered, and matters requiring cooperation from other agencies.

3. 監管過渡規定

Transitional Regulatory Provisions

個資會將直接監管目前沒有明確目的事業主管機關的業者。而有明確目的事業主管機關的業者，基於個資會監管資源尚未齊備，於個資會成立六年內，針對民間企業之個資相關監管事宜，個資會得公告一定範圍之民間企業，仍由中央目的事業主管機關或地方政府管轄之。

The PDPC will directly regulate businesses that currently do not have a clearly designated competent authority. For businesses that do have an expressly designated competent industry authority, given that the PDPC’s regulatory resources may not yet be fully established, the PDPC may, within six years from its establishment, announce certain categories of private-sector entities for which personal data–related regulatory matters shall continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the central competent industry authority or local government.

針對個資會公告仍由中央目的事業主管機關或地方政府管轄之民間企業範圍，中央目的事業主管並得就該一定範圍之民間企業指定訂定「個人資料檔案安全維護計畫」或「業務終止後個人資料處理方法」，且針對前開計畫或辦法相關事項之辦法，由中央目的事業主管機關比照個資會訂定之辦法訂定，並得為更為嚴格之規定。民間企業若未訂定相關計畫、辦法，或係違反中央目的事業主管所訂辦法中有關計畫或處理方法應具備之內容、基準或執行方式之規定，個資會得處罰鍰，並得按次處罰。

For those private-sector entities announced by the PDPC as remaining under the jurisdiction of the central competent industry authority or local government, the central competent industry authority may require such entities to prepare a “Personal Data File Security Maintenance Plan” or a “Personal Data Processing Method After Business Termination.” The regulations governing such plans or methods shall be formulated by the central competent industry authority by reference to the rules established by the PDPC, and may impose stricter requirements. If a private-sector entity fails to establish the required plan or method, or violates the content, standards, or implementation requirements set forth in the regulations issued by the central competent industry authority, the PDPC may impose an administrative fine and may continue to impose fines for each instance of noncompliance.

4. 個資會為獨立機關，依法獨立行使職權，除法律另有規定外，不受其他機關指揮監督，因此，若對個資會所為之行政處分不服，應直接適用行政訴訟程序。

The PDPC is an independent authority that exercises its powers independently in accordance with the law and, unless otherwise provided by law, is not subject to the direction or supervision of any other government agency. Accordingly, if a party disagrees with an administrative disposition rendered by the PDPC, the appropriate remedy is to directly pursue administrative litigation procedures.

由本次修正內容可知，個資事務監管事權將漸行移轉並集中至個資會。除上開說明之修法重點外，民間企業應特別注意的係，本次修法明定將由個資會針對個資事故應變措施、安全控管事項統一訂定原則規範，因此民間企業現行依循現行各中央目的事業主管機關依修正前之個資法第27條第2項（本次修正已刪除本項）訂定發布的個人資料檔案安全維護管理辦法而所訂定個資相關內規，很可能須為相應調整。然而，因個資會尚未制定發布該原則規範，且亦不清楚個資會於個資法監管過渡期間，暫將如何劃分民間企業範圍予中央目的事業主管機關監管等，建議仍應持續關注本次個資法修法後續，以資及時因應調整。

Based on the amendments, it is clear that regulatory authority over personal data matters will gradually be transferred to and centralized within the PDPC. In addition to the key amendments outlined above, private-sector entities should pay particular attention to the fact that the PDPC is now expressly tasked with formulating unified principles governing personal data incident response measures and security control requirements. As a result, internal policies currently adopted by private-sector entities—based on the “Personal Data Security Maintenance and Management Regulations” issued by their respective central competent industry authorities under former Article 27, Paragraph 2 of the PDPA (which has been deleted in this amendment)—may need to be adjusted accordingly. However, because the PDPC has not yet promulgated these unified principles, and because it remains unclear how the PDPC will delineate the scope of private-sector entities that will continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the central competent industry authorities during the regulatory transition period, it is advisable for private-sector entities to closely monitor subsequent developments under the amended Personal Data Protection Act to enable timely compliance and adjustment.

未經台灣主管機關許可之外國保險業，就在台灣之保險契約關係，所受主管機關監管範疇及契約效力 Regulatory Scope and Validity of Unadmitted Insurance Contracts in Taiwan Involving Foreign Insurers Without Approval from the Taiwanese Regulator

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 06:19:48 GMT

未經台灣主管機關許可之外國保險業，就在台灣之保險契約關係，所受主管機關監管範疇及契約效力

Regulatory Scope and Validity of Unadmitted Insurance Contracts in Taiwan Involving Foreign Insurers Without Approval from the Taiwanese Regulator

1. 在台灣規定外國保險業非經主管機關許可，並依法為設立登記，繳存保證金，領得營業執照後，不得開始營業(保險法第137條第3項)，且欲在台灣發行的保單，都需送交台灣金融監管機關FSC核准或備查後，方可正式發行。

然因為保險業務依據險種或是契約特性，也常有未經台灣主管機關許可設立之外國保險公司，因故在台灣境內發生一定保險契約關係的情況(如台灣要保人透過保險經紀人向外國保險公司投保，保險計劃中有被保險人/受益人位於台灣等)，而該保險契約因未曾經過FSC核准或備查，而可能構成所謂unadmitted insurance contract。此時，台灣金融監管機關FSC是否可能認定外國保險公司在台灣違法經營保險業務而受處罰，自應加以留意。

2. 台灣金融監管機關的基本立場是，在台灣經營保險業務是指在台灣從事招攬、核保、締約等保險核心業務，若未在台灣從事上述業務則不至於違反保險法之規定。但若外國保險業違反上揭規定而於未經許可、辦理設立登記之情形下於台灣從事招攬保險業務，主管機關將可依保險法第166條規定處以停業、新台幣300萬以上1500萬以下等罰鍰行政處分。若替未經許可的外國保險業在台灣代理、經紀或招攬保險業務之行為人，將受刑事追訴，雇用該行為人之法人，也將被課予罰金，此則規範於保險法第167-1條:

為非本法之保險業或外國保險業代理、經紀或招攬保險業務者，除屬配合政府政策需要且經主管機關公告之保險，透過保險經紀人向國外之保險業投保者外，處三年以下有期徒刑，得併科新臺幣三百萬元以上二千萬元以下罰金；情節重大者，得由主管機關對保險代理人、經紀人、公證人或兼營保險代理人或保險經紀人業務之銀行停止一部或全部業務，或廢止許可，並註銷執業證照。

法人之代表人、代理人、受僱人或其他從業人員，因執行業務犯前項之罪者，除處罰其行為人外，對該法人亦科該項之罰金。

3. 至於與未經許可設立的外國保險公司成立之保險契約，台灣法院判決則傾向認為並非概為無效，而屬於民事契約範疇。此點，也可從目前台灣現行相關法令，並未明文禁止台灣人民向外國保險公司投保、簽訂保險契約或加以否認其保險契約效力，得到印證。

1. Under Taiwanese law, a foreign insurance company may not commence business in Taiwan unless it has obtained approval from the competent authority, completed the incorporation and registration procedures, deposited the required guarantee bond, and obtained a business license (Insurance Act, Article 137, Paragraph 3). In addition, any insurance policy intended to be marketed in Taiwan must be submitted to the Financial Supervisory Commission (“FSC”) for approval or filing before it can be officially issued.

However, due to the nature of insurance business and certain policy structures, it is not uncommon for a foreign insurer that has not been authorized to operate in Taiwan to nonetheless become involved in insurance contract relationships connected to Taiwan. Examples include a Taiwanese policyholder purchasing insurance from a foreign insurer through an insurance broker, or situations in which the insured or beneficiary under an insurance program is located in Taiwan. Because such contracts have not been approved or filed with the FSC, they may be considered “unadmitted insurance contracts.” In such circumstances, whether the FSC may deem the foreign insurer to be conducting insurance business in Taiwan without authorization—thereby triggering potential penalties—has drawn considerable attention.

2. The FSC’s general position is that “conducting insurance business in Taiwan” refers to engaging in core insurance activities within Taiwan, such as solicitation, underwriting, or contract execution. If the foreign insurer does not perform such activities in Taiwan, it would not be deemed in violation of the Insurance Act. However, if a foreign insurer engages in solicitation of insurance business in Taiwan without obtaining the required approval or registration, the competent authority may impose administrative sanctions under Article 166 of the Insurance Act, including an order to cease business and an administrative fine ranging from NT$3 million to NT$15 million.

Furthermore, any person who acts in Taiwan as an agent, broker, or solicitor for an unapproved foreign insurer will be subject to criminal liability. A corporate entity that employs such a person will also be subject to monetary penalties. These matters are governed by Article 167-1 of the Insurance Act, which provides:

A person who acts as an agent, broker, or solicitor for an insurance enterprise that is not an insurance enterprise under this Act or a foreign insurance enterprise—except for insurance procured from foreign insurers via insurance brokers in accordance with government policy as publicly announced by the competent authority—shall be subject to imprisonment of up to three years and/or a criminal fine between NT$3 million and NT$20 million. For serious violations, the competent authority may order insurance agents, brokers, notaries, or banks concurrently engaging in insurance agent or broker activities to suspend part or all of their business or revoke their licenses and cancel their registration certificates.
Where the representative, agent, employee, or other personnel of a legal entity commits the above offense in the course of its business, the legal entity shall be subject to the same monetary penalties in addition to the punishment imposed on the individual offender.

3. With respect to insurance contracts concluded with a foreign insurer that has not been approved to establish operations in Taiwan, Taiwanese court decisions generally do not consider such contracts automatically invalid; rather, they are treated as ordinary civil contracts. This approach is consistent with the fact that current Taiwanese laws do not expressly prohibit Taiwanese individuals from purchasing insurance, entering into contracts with foreign insurers, nor do they provide that such contracts are void.

修法動態 - 公開發行公司取得或處分資產處理準則修正 Regulatory Update – Amendments to the Regulations Governing the Acquisition and Disposal of Assets by Public Companies

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 02:36:04 GMT

修法動態 - 公開發行公司取得或處分資產處理準則修正

Regulatory Update – Amendments to the Regulations Governing the Acquisition and Disposal of Assets by Public Companies

金融監督管理委員會（下稱金管會）於2025年7月24日修正公布「公開發行公司取得或處分資產處理準則」(下稱處理準則)第31、35條規定，以針對實收資本額達新臺幣五百億元以上之公開發行公司，放寬其應公開申報取得或出售之資產等。本次修正重點如下：

1. 考量公開發行公司取得或處分供營業使用之設備屬於正常營運行為，並且考量資訊揭露重大性原則，爰修正放寬實收資本額達新臺幣五百億元以上之公開發行公司，於交易金額達公司實收資本額百分之五以上者，始須辦理公開申報。

2. 考量鑑於公開發行公司有透過投資固定收益債券進行資金調節以提升現金收益率之需求，並且考量資訊揭露重大性原則，衡酌商品風險屬性，亦修正放寬實收資本額達新臺幣五百億元之公司與非關係人於證券交易所或證券商營業處所買賣之公債、普通公司債及未涉及股權之一般金融債券(不含次順位債券)，於交易金額達公司實收資本額百分之五以上者，始須辦理公開申報。

3. 配合上開兩點關於實收資本額達新臺幣五百億元以上公開發行公司之相關修正，亦明訂公司股票無面額、或每股面額非屬新台幣十元者，其實收資本額百分之五及實收資本額達新台幣五百億元之交易金額之計算方式。

本次修正自發布日施行。金管會表示，經由本次放寬措施，應可簡化公開發行公司取得或處分資產申報作業之負擔，且預計將減少未來重訊之數量。

另，為配合本次修正，公開發行公司應提交董事會通過，送交監察人並提報股東會同意，以為相應調整原公司內部之「取得或處分資產處理程序」以資適法因應調整。

On July 24, 2025, the Financial Supervisory Commission (the “FSC”) amended Articles 31 and 35 of the Regulations Governing the Acquisition and Disposal of Assets by Public Companies (the “Regulations”), relaxing certain public disclosure and reporting requirements for public companies with paid-in capital of NT$50 billion or more in relation to the acquisition or disposal of assets. Key points of the amendments are summarized as follows:

1. In consideration that the acquisition or disposal of equipment used for business operations by a public company constitutes part of its normal course of business, and in line with the principle of material information disclosure, the Regulations have been amended to relax the public disclosure requirement for public companies with paid-in capital of NT$50 billion or more. Such companies are now required to make a public filing only when the transaction amount reaches 5% or more of the company’s paid-in capital.

2. In recognition of the need for public companies to engage in cash management and enhance cash yield through investments in fixed-income bonds, and in line with the principle of material information disclosure while taking into account the risk characteristics of such products, the Regulations have also been amended to relax the reporting requirement for companies with paid-in capital of NT$50 billion or more. Specifically, transactions involving government bonds, straight corporate bonds, and general financial bonds without equity features (excluding subordinated bonds) that are traded with non-related parties on the stock exchange or over the counter through securities firms are now required to be publicly reported only when the transaction amount reaches 5% or more of the company’s paid-in capital.

3. In line with the above two amendments applicable to public companies with paid-in capital of NT$50 billion or more, the Regulations further clarify the calculation methods for determining (i) the 5% threshold of paid-in capital and (ii) the transaction amount equivalent to NT$50 billion of paid-in capital, in cases where a company has no par value shares or where the par value per share is not NT$10.

These amendments take effect from the date of promulgation. According to the FSC, the relaxation measures are expected to simplify the reporting procedures for public companies when acquiring or disposing of assets and are anticipated to reduce the number of future material information disclosures.

In addition, to comply with the amendments, public companies must obtain approval of their board of directors, submit the revised procedures to supervisors, and present them to the shareholders’ meeting for approval, so as to make corresponding adjustments to their internal “Procedures for Acquisition or Disposal of Assets” to ensure legal compliance.

海洋汙染法治法修正 Amendments to Marine Pollution Legislation

Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:30:41 GMT

海洋汙染防治法修正

Amendments to Marine Pollution Legislation

海洋汙染防治法於2023年修正通過，除設置海汙基金、建立吹哨者制度外，也參考了部分國際制度，強化了汙染管理及加重罰則，用以達到維持海洋環境永續性的政策方向，此在修法通過後，已有諸多面向的詳實討論。

而對於營運船舶的船東、傭船人或其他船舶營運人(包含P&I Clubs)而言，主要關切面向仍多在於船舶源污染責任及P&I LOU的運用部分。

1. 責任限制規範並未納入台灣海洋汙染防治法中。

依據此次修法所參考的1992年IOPC公約，以及IMO的1992年CLC公約，其制度設計原是雙層的責任分擔制度所構成。第一層是船東損害賠償及責任，藉由具體規定船東和其保險人的責任限制，為船東及其保險人提供了確定性，同時，在極少數索賠超過船東責任限制的情形，損害賠償請求權人，仍能從本次修正新增的海洋污染防治基金就超過的部分取償，而保障索賠人之權益。不過，本次海洋汙染防治法修正，並未納入責任限制條款，油汙損害船東及其保險人，在新法通過後，仍無法主張責任限制，而與相關公約下的雙層責任制度，在操作上有重大區別。至於相關法令例如海商法，在後續修法中是否可能加入油汙之責任限制，仍待觀察。

2. P&I Clubs的Letter of Undertaking(LOU)仍可作為海洋汙染案件中之擔保。

LOU作為海洋汙染事故中提供損害賠償擔保的方式，被港務單位所接受已然行之有年，這自然是本於海洋汙染事件具有國際性，且船東責任保險幾乎全由國外P&I Clubs承保，以及油汙案件具急迫性所致。本次修正海洋汙染防治法中雖未就擔保方式做規定，但實務上接受P&I Clubs LOU作為擔保方式則未見改變。至於海洋汙染防治法施行細則第23條文義上是對於海洋汙染防治法第三十六條第二項所做的擔保規定，是否可作為所有擔保使用LOU的法源，解釋上似有其侷限性。

另，原本依據海洋污染防治法第三十六條第三項所公告的「船舶污染損害賠償責任保險或擔保之額度」，亦隨著海洋汙染防治法修訂，一併修正內容並變更名稱為「船舶污染責任保險或擔保之額度」，在內容上略有更動。 https://www.oac.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=67&parentpath=0,6&mcustomize=bulletin_view.jsp&dataserno=202309210003&mserno=201906300001

#長立國際法律事務所# #海洋汙染# #海事案件# #海商#

The Marine Pollution Control Act was amended in 2023. In addition to establishing the Marine Pollution Control Fund and introducing a whistleblower mechanism, the amendments draw upon certain international systems to strengthen pollution management and increase penalties, with the policy objective of promoting the sustainability of the marine environment. Since the passage of these amendments, various aspects of the changes have been widely discussed in detail.

For shipowners, charterers, or other vessel operators (including P&I Clubs), the primary concerns continue to focus on liability for ship-source pollution and the use of P&I Letters of Undertaking (LOUs).

1. Limitation of Liability Provisions Were Not Incorporated into Taiwan’s Marine Pollution Control Act

The recent amendments were made with reference to the 1992 IOPC Convention and the International Maritime Organization’s 1992 CLC Convention, both of which are structured around a two-tier liability allocation system. Under this system, the first tier consists of the shipowner’s liability for damages, with explicit limitations placed on the liability of both the shipowner and its insurer. This provides certainty and predictability for shipowners and their insurers. At the same time, in the rare event that claims exceed the liability limit, claimants are able to recover the excess amount from the Marine Pollution Control Fund newly established under the amendments, thereby safeguarding their rights. However, the 2023 amendments to the Marine Pollution Control Act did not incorporate any limitation of liability provisions. As a result, shipowners and their insurers involved in oil pollution damage cases remain unable to invoke limitation of liability under the amended law. This creates a substantial operational difference from the two-tier liability system under the aforementioned international conventions. Whether related legislation, such as the Maritime Act, may introduce oil pollution liability limitation provisions in future amendments remains to be observed.

2. P&I Clubs’ Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) Remain Acceptable as Security in Marine Pollution Cases

The use of Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) issued by P&I Clubs as security for compensation in marine pollution incidents has long been accepted by port authorities. This practice naturally arises from the international nature of marine pollution events, the fact that shipowners’ liability insurance is almost entirely underwritten by foreign P&I Clubs, and the urgent nature of oil pollution cases. Although the recent amendments to the Marine Pollution Control Act do not expressly address the forms of security that may be provided, there has been no change in practice regarding the acceptance of P&I Club LOUs as a means of providing security.

As for Article 23 of the Enforcement Rules of the Marine Pollution Control Act, which appears to provide for security under Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Act, its wording raises questions as to whether it can serve as a sufficient legal basis for the use of LOUs as security in all circumstances. There may be limitations in interpreting it in such an expansive manner.

In addition, the “Amount of the Liability Insurance Coverage or Guarantee for Compensation for Ship-Source Pollution Damage,” which had originally been announced pursuant to Article 36, Paragraph 3 of the Marine Pollution Control Act, was also amended in conjunction with the revisions to the Act. Its title has been changed to “Amount of the Liability Insurance Coverage or Guarantee for Ship-Source Pollution Damage,” with certain adjustments made to its content.

Link:

https://www.oac.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=67&parentpath=0,6&mcustomize=bulletin_view.jsp&dataserno=202309210003&mserno=201906300001

#Chen Chang & Associates #MarinePollution #MaritimeCases #Maritime

貨物錯誤申報與船舶安全：船上爆炸事故下的法律責任探討 Misdeclaration of Cargo and Ship Safety: Legal Liabilities Arising from Onboard Explosions

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 03:15:07 GMT

貨物錯誤申報與船舶安全：船上爆炸事故下的法律責任探討

Misdeclaration of Cargo and Ship Safety: Legal Liabilities Arising from Onboard Explosions

貨物錯誤申報與船舶安全：船上爆炸事故下的法律責任探討

在海上運輸實務中，船舶的安全仰賴各方履行其應盡的義務，其中尤以託運人如實申報貨物性質為關鍵。特別是在涉及危險品運送時，貨物的正確申報不僅攸關船舶本身的安全，更直接影響船員生命、其他貨物、港口設施的安全。

實務上曾發生多起因託運人錯誤申報或隱匿危險品性質，導致船舶於航行或裝卸作業期間發生爆炸或火災的事故，造成嚴重財產損失與人身傷亡。面對此類事件，運送人／船東該如何主張損害賠償？貨主將可能面臨哪些法律責任？

本文就託運人錯誤申報貨物時，可能涉及的契約責任與侵權行為責任，提供釐清責任歸屬的參考。

一、依據運送契約所生的契約責任

多數運送條款明確要求託運人申報危險物品，並提供正確且完整的貨物資訊。託運人若違反此等義務，即構成違約責任。此外，海上運送，依台灣法律體系，應優先適用《海商法》之規定。

依《海商法》第55條第1項，託運人有義務向運送人保證其就貨物名稱、數量、包裝種類、件數及標誌等所為之通知內容正確。若貨主錯誤申報貨物（如實際為危險品卻未揭露）而致貨物引發爆炸，運送人證明託運人通知的貨物內容與實際貨物狀況不符（不正確性），且該錯誤申報與爆炸損害間具因果關係，即得依《海商法》第55條主張損害賠償。

除《海商法》外，運送人亦可依《民法》第631條規定主張契約責任。該條明定，若運送物依其性質可能對人或財產造成損害，託運人應於締約前將其性質告知運送人，否則應負損害賠償責任。而實務判決（例如臺灣高等法院92年度上易字第1260號判決）曾指出，該條文適用須以「貨物之性質」確實具備致損害之虞為前提，若貨物本質非危險物，或損害非由貨物性質直接引起，則無法據以請求賠償。

二、侵權行為責任

運送人亦可依《民法》第184條主張侵權行為責任。該條規定，凡因故意或過失、不法侵害他人權利，應負損害賠償責任。倘若託運人違反《海商法》第55條第1項所課予之告知義務，即可作為其主觀上具有一定過失之佐證。

進一步而言，運送貨物若屬《船舶危險品裝載規則》所定義之危險品，託運人須依該規則第37條向船東或船長提交「危險品託運書」並且揭露必要資訊。若託運人錯誤將危險品申報為一般貨物，未履行法定告知義務，亦可認其具有過失（參照臺灣高等法院82年度海商上字第13號判決）。

三、舉證責任

運送人主張前述契約責任或侵權行為責任時，應證明託運人具有過失。法院實務上曾認定，將危險物品誤報為一般貨物，已構成託運人未履行申報義務，足以推定其有過失。故當運送人能證明託運人未正確申報貨物，即完成初步舉證責任，舉證責任即轉由託運人負擔，證明其並無過失或已善盡告知義務。

小結

在海上運輸中，正確申報貨物是託運人不可推卸的基本義務。若因錯誤申報導致船上發生爆炸或其他災損事件，不僅將面臨契約責任與侵權責任的追究，甚且可能因此衍生行政或刑事責任。運送人／船東在發生事故後，宜儘早蒐集相關證據，包括提單、裝箱單、貨物申報文件與貨物實際狀況等，釐清事實並評估主張權利之法律依據。

反之，託運人若遭受求償，亦應審慎檢視自身申報流程及內部控管機制，並視需要提出反證或主張責任減輕。

Misdeclaration of Cargo and Ship Safety: Legal Liabilities Arising from Onboard Explosions

In maritime transport practice, the safety of a vessel relies heavily on the proper fulfillment of obligations by all parties involved. Among these, the shipper's duty to accurately declare the nature of the cargo is of particular importance. This is especially critical when dangerous goods are involved, as proper declaration not only affects the safety of the vessel itself but also has a direct impact on the lives of crew members, the safety of other cargo, and the integrity of port facilities.

There have been multiple incidents where a shipper’s misdeclaration or concealment of dangerous goods has led to explosions or fires during the voyage or loading/unloading operations, resulting in significant property loss and personal injuries. When such accidents occur, what claims for compensation can the carrier or shipowner pursue? What legal liabilities might the shipper face?

This article provides an overview of the contractual and tortious liabilities that may arise under Taiwanese law when a shipper misdeclares cargo, and offers guidance on how responsibility may be assessed.

1. Contractual Liability Under the Carriage Contract

Most carriage terms expressly require shippers to declare dangerous goods and provide accurate and complete cargo information. A shipper’s failure to fulfill such obligations constitutes a contractual breach. Additionally, under Taiwan’s legal framework, maritime matters are governed primarily by the Maritime Act.

According to Article 55, Paragraph 1 of the Taiwanese Maritime Act, the shipper is obligated to guarantee the accuracy of the cargo’s name, quantity, packaging type, number of packages, and markings provided to the carrier. If a shipper misdeclares cargo (e.g., conceals that it is dangerous goods) and an explosion subsequently occurs, the carrier may claim compensation under this provision, provided that the carrier can prove:
(1) the shipper’s declaration was inaccurate (i.e., the declared cargo did not match the actual cargo); and
(2) a causal link exists between the misdeclaration and the resulting explosion or damage.

Apart from the Maritime Act, carriers may also invoke Article 631 of the Civil Code to claim contractual liability. This provision states that if the nature of the goods may pose a risk of harm to persons or property, the shipper must disclose such nature before concluding the contract. Failure to do so results in liability for any resulting damage. However, court practice (e.g., Taiwan High Court Civil Judgment, Shang-Yi-Zi No. 1260 of 2003) has clarified that the application of this article is limited to goods whose inherent nature poses a risk of harm. If the cargo is not dangerous by nature, or if the damage was not directly caused by such nature, this article may not be applicable.

2. Tortious Liability

The carrier may also bring a claim under Article 184 of the Civil Code, which provides for liability arising from intentional or negligent acts that unlawfully infringe on the rights of others. If a shipper violates the declaration obligation under Article 55, Paragraph 1 of the Maritime Act, such violation may support a finding of negligence.

Furthermore, if the cargo in question qualifies as "dangerous goods" under the Regulations for the Carriage and Stowage of Dangerous Goods by Ships, the shipper is required under Article 37 of the Regulations to submit a Dangerous Goods Shipping Declaration to the shipowner or master, disclosing required information in the prescribed format. If the shipper misdeclares dangerous goods as general cargo and fails to fulfill this statutory duty of disclosure, such conduct may be deemed negligent (see Taiwan High Court judgment, Maritime-Shang-Zi No. 13 of 1993).

3. Burden of Proof

When asserting claims based on contractual or tortious liability, the carrier bears the burden of proving the shipper’s negligence. In practice, Taiwanese courts have found that misdeclaring dangerous goods as general cargo constitutes a failure to fulfill the shipper’s duty of disclosure and gives rise to a presumption of negligence. Therefore, once the carrier proves that the shipper failed to accurately declare the cargo, the initial burden of proof is met, and the burden shifts to the shipper to prove that they were not negligent or had otherwise fulfilled their duty of disclosure.

Conclusion

In maritime transport, accurate cargo declaration is a fundamental and non-delegable duty of the shipper. When explosions or other damages occur onboard as a result of misdeclaration, the shipper may face both contractual and tortious liability, and in some cases, administrative or even criminal consequences.

Following such incidents, the carrier or shipowner should promptly collect relevant evidence - including bills of lading, packing lists, cargo declarations, and inspection records - to ascertain the facts and evaluate possible legal claims. Conversely, shippers facing claims should carefully review their internal declaration procedures and control mechanisms and, if necessary, present rebuttal evidence or argue for a reduction of liability.

Through mutual adherence to legal obligations and responsible risk management, both parties can contribute to safer and more reliable maritime operations.