Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

SEQUOIA FORWARDERS CO 187
clearest indication of Congress intention that these activities were no
longer allowed to be performed by forwarders We are not so convinced
The legislative history ofthe freight forwarder amendment fails to
indicate why the earlier approach was abandoned Certainly there is no
evidence that the intent ofthe change in language which Hearing Counsel
views as so significant was to preclude the licensing of the entities listed
in the earlier bill Indeed it is equally as likely that the earlier approach
was rejected in favor of that finally adopted because the Congressional
draftsmen realized the problems inherent in attempting to enumerate a
host ofparticularized activities lest one be omitted that should be
included For whatever reason Congress went from the more specific
listing of job titles to a more generic approach to the matter the fact
remains that the change in approach is absolutely inconclusive as an
indication of the drafters intent
Hearing Counsel sreliance on the Zanelli decisions as support for its
proposition that Sequoia is not independent within the meaning of
section 1 of the Act is equally misplaced Both Hearing Counsel and the
Presiding Officer apparently misinterpret the standard of absolute
independence required by section 1 of the Act and explained in the
Zanelli case The Zanelli case does not stand for the proposition that
every agency or other relationship between a forwarder and an export
shipper is proscribed by the independence requirement of section 1 of the
Act The statutory requirement of absolute independence discussed in
Zanelli is absolute only to the extent it absolutely bars the licensing
of
any applicant whose activities cause it to be included in one of the
prohibited categories of section 1 of the Act It is not a standard requiring
an applicant to be absolutely independent of shipper interests as the
Presiding Officer would apparently have it That the section 1 independ
ence requirement does not preclude all relationships between forwarders
on the one hand and shippers and consignees on the other was
specifically made clear by the court in Norman G Jensen vFMC497
F2d 1053 CA 8th Cir 1974
In the Jensen case the court reversed the Commission sfindings that
Jensen alicensed forwarder was by virtue of its connection with ITC
through common ownership and interlocking officers and directors
shipper connected and as a result derived a beneficial interest from
the fee paid ITC for rendering to its slipper clients the following services
1 making arrangements for transportation to the ports 2 preparing
export declarations consular invoices and related documents 3 receiv
ing purchase orders and payment 4 preparing commercial invoices and
inventory reports 5 investigating credit and 6 selecting freight
forwarders
In rejecting the Commission s determination that by reason of its
relationship with ITC and ITCs activities Jensen was shipper con
19FMC