Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

AGREEMENT NOT2336 261
NYSA and the Puerto Rican carriers of engaging in delaying tactics
and suggests two percent per month as the measure of interest since this
is the rate NYSA charges carriers for late payment ofassessments BThe
Group states however that the rate of interest is not as important as
the principle There must be some cosi to those who hold another s
funds for such a protracted period We feel that the claim for interest
should be denied
The decision whether or not to grant interest as a part of the States
Marine Group srecovery is one within our discretion See Flota Mercante
Grancolombrana v FMC 373F2d 674 681 DC Cir 196 n and we
feel that neither equity nor promotion of effective reguladon requires such
grant here Although it is true in a sense that the States Marine Group
has been deprived of the use of its funds by virtue of its overpayment
the fact that such overpayment was made much less the amount of such
overpayment could not have been ascertained prior to our second
decision herein t Infact in our first decision in this proceeding we found
that the Puerto Rican carriers should have been assessed on an excepted
basis See 14FMC 94 97 99 103 which would have required
adjustrnents in their favor as opposed to that of the States Marine Group
Insofar as the period from the date of our remand is concerned
althougl various delays in this proceeding have occurred the postpone
ments were granted by Judge Morgan or by us because good cause was
found for them We also note in this regard that the States Marine Group
itself has obtained several delays in the proceeding We find nothing
showing delaying tactics by anyone in obtaining such delays
The contention that NYSA has held the funds which the States
Marine Group claims is incorrect NYSA prompUy pays over any monies
it collects to fund the benefits under its collective bargaining agreement
with the ILA
Although NYSA cannot be absolved from its liability to the States
Marine Group for overassessment for the 1969 1971 period it dces not
appear equitable or necessary or helpful for regulatory purposes to impose
liability for interest upon it wheNYSA has not engaged in any conduct
wtuch it should have known was improper at the time has not been
shown to have improperly delayed this proceeding and did not hold but
prompdy paid over the assessments it collected for the use and benefit of
ILA which was their intended and proper purpose 1e
1
Although in view ofour denial ofany interest on the States Marine Group sclaim it is unnecessary for us to
determine what aproper rare of interest would have been wedo note in passing Ihat Ihe two percent figure suggestW
by Ihe Group may not have much relevance to the problem since there appears o have been no late payment for
which NYSA has exaaed a two percent penalty
Cf our denial of interest on unliquida eA cieims in Philip R Consalo r Flom Mercante Grancolombia 6
FMC262 269 196Q reversed on olher outds sub nom Flotu MercanteGrnncolombiana v FMC 342F7A924
DC Cir 1964 a ultimately afftrmed sub nom Consolo v FMC 383 US607196G
1
The claim of he Sta es Marine Group for rePond unlike its claim for interest does not rest upon adiscretionary
basis It resb upon therequ vement of complience with our order approving AgreementT2390 upon the condition
tha such adjustments woWd be made as the ultimate decision showed to be necessary our order in ISFMC at
262 28n ordering adjustments our order of remand to Judge Morgan directing implementation of the terms and
19FMC