Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY v LYKES BROS 199
shed floor and the heading charge is assessed only for work performed
after delivery is completed
The Initial Decision would in the opinion of Corpus Christi require
Corpus Christi cotton shippers to assume the obligation and expense of
handling the cotton bales after they have been delivered to and are in the
possession of the carrier it is the carrier not the shipper that desires to
move or arrange the cotton once it is unloaded and it is the carrier that
benefits from any such subsequent handling Corpus Christi therefore
concludes that it is perfectly proper for the carrier to bear the expense of
heading
Houston
the bales
Houston s Reply to Exceptions supports the findings
and conclusions
of the Presiding Officer and stresses the fact that Houston shippers pay
all costs of unloading handling and heading cotton bales into the ship s
transit shed regardless ofoverlarild transportation methods while at
Corpus Christi and Galveston the cost of heading is borne by the
vessel in some instance The cargo delivery cases cited by Corpus Christi
have no relevance to the instant proceeding because eventhough they
necessarily turned upon the point where complete delivery was made
the issue before the court was the risk of loss not the application of the
Shipping Act According to Houston the facts show disparate cotton
handling practices at the three ports and the mere existence of this
disparity violates the Act
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The record below is far from clear but sufficiently describes cotton
handling practices at Houston Galveston and Corpus Christi to indicate
that the complained of variations do not violate sections 16 and 17 of the
Act It has long been established that not all preferences or advantages
offered by carriers are condemned by law but only those that are undue
or unreasonable violate the Shipping Act Delaware River Port Authority
v Transamerican Trailer Transport Inc F M C 14 S R R 1468
1975 affd 527 F 2d 1386 D C Cir 1976 Lake Charles Harbor and
Terminal District v Port of Beaumont Navigation District 12 F M C
244 1 9 Investigation of Overland and OCP Rates and Absorptions
12 F M C 184 1969 affd Port of New York v Authority Federal
Maritime Commission 429 F 2d 663 669670 5th Cir 1970 Stockton
Port District v Pacific Westbound Conference 9 F M C 12 1 5 affd
369 F 2d 380 9th Cir 1966 cert den 386 U S 1031 1967 Intercoastal
Investigation 1 U S S B B 400 1935 Moreover the existence of unjust
discrimination or prejudice must be demonstrated by substantial proof
Philadelphia Ocean Traffic Bureau v Export S S Corporation 1
19 F M C