The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 was enacted to concise and interpret a century worth of consolidate a century of Indian admiralty law that was made in fragments. However, in regards to the Act making a structural distinction between a Section 4 and Section 9 -“maritime claim” and a “maritime lien” respectively, the Act simply iterates the same rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity that persists. The uncertainty in classifying bunker fuel supplies, which is expressed under the Act’s maritime claims but nowhere within its closed list of maritime liens, is clearly demonstrated as testament to the vagueness present within the statute. Utilizing the Toulmin model of argumentation, this paper aims to track the resulting asymmetry through various codified enactments within India, further testing it against several prominent judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court, especially in holdings such as Chrisomar Corporation v. MJR Steels Pvt. Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court’s self-correction in Dan Bunkering Pte. Ltd. v. Best Excellence Corporation Ltd. , and further analyzed comparative jurisprudence and efforts in Canada, Australia, and the wake of the OW Bunker collapse. The paper concludes that continued reliance on judicial interpretation to improvise interpretation is inadequate to achieve binding and constructive, and proposes a targeted statutory amendment.