Chinese Forwarder Asks FMC to Dismiss Allegations of Delayed Containers, Shipping Violations
A Chinese freight forwarder asked the Federal Maritime Commission to dismiss an October complaint from a U.S. distributor accusing the forwarder of illegally trying to change the terms of a signed service contract and purposefully delaying 20 container shipments in order to submit higher detention and demurrage invoices (see 2210250021).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
China-based Shenzhen Unifelix, a non-vessel operating common carrier, said in a response to the FMC released this week that the commission should dismiss the complaint because it lacks jurisdiction. U.S.-based Way Interglobal's allegations are “entirely based upon demurrage incurred in a Chicago railyard, thus putting this matter outside the jurisdiction of the FMC,” Unifelix said.
The Chinese company also said Way Interglobal’s accusations “are actually an alleged failure to fulfill service obligations under a service contract,” adding that “these raise a claim for a breach of contract, not a claim of a violation of the Act. Accordingly, those claims must be dismissed.” It also said the accusations “lack the necessary specificity to support a claim,” calling Way Interglobal’s allegations vague.
The company “offers a series of conclusory allegations without any allegations of pattern or practice,” Unifelix said. “It is impossible to determine from the Complaint how isolated actions rise to the level of patterns or practices, and which patterns and practices violate which parts of the Shipping Act."
Unifelix also disputed Way Interglobal's assertion that it's due reparations. Although Way Interglobal said it “suffered $1 million in damages,” that claim is “immediately undermined by [Way’s] admission that Way has not paid its freight or demurrage,” Unifelix said. “One cannot recover reparations for damages that have not yet been and may never be sustained.”
“Critically, there is also no explanation as to how those claimed damages were caused by Unifelix’s alleged violations,” Unifelix added. “In fact, according to the plain language of the Complaint, most of" Unifelix’s "actions were merely attempted violations, and that Unifelix’s efforts were unsuccessful.”