2.3.1 The PSCO should observe the Code of good practice for port State control officers
(MSC-MEPC.4/Circ.2), as shown in appendix 1, use professional judgement in carrying out all
duties and consider consulting others as deemed appropriate.
2.3.2 When boarding a ship, the PSCO should present to the master or to the representative
of the owner, if requested to do so, the PSCO identity card. This card should be accepted as
documented evidence that the PSCO in question is duly authorized by the Administration to
carry out port State control inspections.
2.3.3 If the PSCO has clear grounds for carrying out a more detailed inspection, the master
should be immediately informed of these grounds and advised that, if so desired, the master
may contact the Administration or, as appropriate, the RO responsible for issuing the certificate
and invite their presence on board.
2.3.4 In the case of an inspection being initiated based on a report or complaint, especially
if it is from a crew member, the source of the information should not be disclosed.
2.3.5 When exercising control, all possible efforts should be made to avoid a ship being
unduly detained or delayed. It should be borne in mind that the main purpose of port State
control is to prevent a substandard ship proceeding to sea. The PSCO should exercise professional judgement to determine whether to detain a ship until the deficiencies are corrected or to allow it to sail with certain deficiencies, having regard to the particular circumstances of the intended voyage.
2.3.6 It should be recognized that all equipment is subject to failure and spares or
replacement parts may not be readily available. In such cases, undue delay should not be
caused if, in the opinion of the PSCO, safe alternative arrangements have been made.
2.3.7 Where the grounds for detention are the result of accidental damage suffered to a
ship, no detention order should be issued, provided that:
.1 due account has been given to the convention requirements regarding notification to the flag State Administration, the nominated surveyor or the
RO responsible for issuing the relevant certificate;
.2 prior to entering a port, the master or company has submitted to the port State authority details of the circumstances of the accident and the damage suffered and information about the required notification of the flag State Administration;
.3 appropriate remedial action, to the satisfaction of the port State authority, is being taken by the ship; and
.4 the port State authority has ensured, having been notified of the completion of the remedial action, that deficiencies which were clearly hazardous to safety, health or environment have been rectified.
2.3.8 Since detention of a ship is a serious matter involving many issues, it may be in the
best interest of the PSCO to act together with other interested parties (see paragraph 4.1.3).
For example, the officer may request the owner’s representatives to provide proposals for
correcting the situation. The PSCO should also consider cooperating with the flag State
Administration’s representatives or the RO responsible for issuing the relevant certificates, and
consulting them regarding their acceptance of the owner’s proposals and their possible
additional requirements. Without limiting the PSCO’s discretion in any way, the involvement of
other parties could result in a safer ship, avoid subsequent arguments relating to the
circumstances of the detention and prove advantageous in the case of litigation involving
“undue delay”.
2.3.9 Where deficiencies cannot be remedied at the port of inspection, the PSCO may allow
the ship to proceed to another port, subject to any appropriate conditions determined. In such
circumstances, the PSCO should ensure that the competent authority of the next port of call
and the flag State are notified.
2.3.10 Detention reports to the flag State should be in sufficient detail for an assessment to
be made of the severity of the deficiencies giving rise to the detention.
2.3.11 The company or its representative have a right of appeal against a detention taken
by the authority of a port State. The appeal should not cause the detention to be suspended.
The PSCO should properly inform the master of the right of appeal.
2.3.12 To ensure consistent enforcement of port State control requirements, PSCOs should
carry an extract of section 2.3 (General procedural guidelines for PSCOs) for ready reference
when carrying out any port State control inspections.
2.3.13 PSCOs should also be familiar with the detailed guidelines given in the appendices
to these Procedures.