AP Tariffs Now 6th Largest FMC Publisher for NVOCC Tariffs

Atlantic Pacific Tariffs Inc. (AP Tariffs) has claimed the 6th spot in the ranking of the largest tariff publishers for Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCC). The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) requires all NVOCCs operating in the U.S. trades to publish a tariff (46 CFR § 520.3). Based in Florida, AP Tariffs makes it easy for NVOCCs to publish their tariffs with its technologically advanced platform that significantly reduces filing labor costs and increases compliance at the same time. AP Tariffs has built strong partnerships in the industry. The company looks out for the best interests of its clients to make sure they are in compliance with FMC regulations. "We want our clients to succeed so they can continue doing business for a long time," Pierre Larenas of AP Tariffs said. AP Tariffs provides its clients with compliance training as well as free compliance consultation (up to 2 hours/month) to help customers avoid penalties (up-to $12,363 per occurrence). AP Tariffs has an extensive experience in FMC Rules, Regulations, Processes, Procedures, Audits, and Licensing Requirements for Ocean Transportation Intermediaries (OTIs). Non-clients can also avail of a FREE 30-minute compliance consultation (available in SPANISH and English). Schedule a free 15-minute meeting here.

FMC Invites Comments on Proposed Rule on Cruise Line Refunds

The public has until October 25, 2021, to comment on the Federal Maritime Commission's proposal to amend its regulations governing non-performance by Passenger Vessel Operators (PVO/cruise lines) and establishing new requirements for when cruise passengers should be provided refunds for cancelled or delayed voyages.

The proposed changes are outlined in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the Commission. Specifically, the Commission proposes that non-performance be defined as cancelling a voyage or delaying a voyage by three or more calendar days if a passenger elects not to embark on delayed or substituted voyage offered by a PVO. The Commission also proposes to change its regulations to allow passengers of delayed or cancelled voyages to make direct claims against financial responsibility instruments, such as bonds, maintained by PVOs, subsequent to the passenger’s unsuccessful attempt to receive a refund directly from the PVOs. Finally, the Commission is proposing that all fees, including ancillary fees, paid by a passenger to a PVO be eligible for a refund.

Parties with comments relevant to the proposed changes have until October 25, 2021, to submit their comments to the Commission. The Commission will review and consider the comments it receives. The Commission will vote again to issue a Final Rule before any changes to its regulations take effect.

The NPRM is the product of recommendations made to the Commission in April 2020 by Commissioner Louis E. Sola resulting from his work as a Fact Finding Officer for Fact Finding 30 Investigation, “COVID-19 Impact on Cruise Industry.” In response, the Commission issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in October 2020 to obtain comments on Commissioner Sola’s proposed changes. The NPRM incorporates some of the feedback the Commission received.

COSCO & MSC Deny Allegations of Profiteering, Say Claims Are Bogus

COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd., and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. denied allegations that they colluded with other carriers to drive up freight rates.

Last month, MCS Industries, Inc., a furniture and home furnishing company based in Pennsylvania, filed a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) alleging that since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, global ocean carriers have unjustly and unreasonably exploited customers, vastly increasing their profitability at the expense of shippers and the U.S. public generally, which bears increased freight cost in the form of inflation.

MCS said COSCO and MSC flouted their contractual service commitments, providing MCS with only fractions of the agreed allotments of space on their respective ocean vessels, and instead forcing MCS to make alternate transportation arrangements at substantially—often outrageously—higher spot market prices.

"As a result of the collective conduct and profiteering by COSCO and MSC and their fellow global ocean carriers, ocean carriage costs on the spot market have risen to crisis levels, threatening shippers’ businesses and generating price inflation to support massive windfalls for the carriers at the expense of the public. This conduct is unjust, unreasonable, and unlawful," the furniture company said.

MCS Industries wants the FMC to investigate COSCO and MSC and order them to cease and desist from further violations as well as pay MCS reparations for their unlawful conduct.

In its Answer, COSCO said it has done its level best to provide as much cargo-carrying capacity as it possesses to meet the extraordinary demand created by the U.S. import market. COSCO insists it id not deprive shippers of capacity or create any artificial scarcity. Moreover, COSCO said it did not refuse to negotiate with MCS. The allegations are false, COSCO pointed out that MCS also did not provide any evidence to support its allegations.

MSC, for its part, expressly denied that it has exploited customers. Rather, MSC said, it has dealt reasonably with unprecedented dislocations in international ocean shipping caused by substantial increases in demand at the same time that unprecedented port congestion has effectively limited available vessel capacity and created substantial operational difficulties for carriers, and has endeavored to comply at all times, and believes it has complied, with its contractual obligations to its customers, including MCS.

MSC objected to MCS’s mischaracterization of ocean carrier alliances such as the “2M Alliance” as “collusive”. MSC noted that such alliances are authorized by the FMC so that carriers can engage in related cooperative operating activities in various trades that create efficiencies that benefit exporters, importers, and consumers.

Both COSCO and MSC asked the FMC to dismiss the MCS Complaint.

Documents related to the proceeding -- 21-05 - MCS Industries, Inc. v. COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd. and MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA -- can be viewed here.