Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

338
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
75 00 per 100 pounds The bill amounted to 2 212 50 plus 135 00 for
insurance Total freight charges in the amount of 5 301 30 were paid by
Complainant
After payment of the bill Complainant discovered that while the
household goods had been rated at the the rate agreed to ie 97 00 per
100 pounds freight charges for the automobile exceeded by 1 462 50 the
estimate quoted in Respondent s November 23 1973 letter
Complainant s repeated requests for an adjustment of that charge were
to no avail In refusing to honor Complainant s claim Respondent took
the position that the November 23 1973 offer was valid only for thirty
days and that rates were subsequently increased because of the higher
cost offuel and of fluctuations in the money markets Thereafter this
complaint wasftled
that as a tariff
The Settlement Officer dismissed the complaint noting
applicable to the shipment could not be located a determination on
whether Van storage had collected the proper charges could not be
made
The ru1ing of the Settlement Officer must be vacated Dismissal of the
complaint under the circumstances presented in the proceeding below
wou1d deprive Complainant from obtaining relief not because it has been
established that it is not entitled to reparation but because of the lack of
information needed to decide the claim on its merits Unanswered for
example is
a Whether the rates quoted by Republic and the charges collected by
Van Storage were based upon a tariff on file with the Commission
b Who was the underlying ocean carrier and did it have a tariff
applicable to this shipment
on file
c Who appears as shipper on the ocean bill of lading
d Whetb r tbbill of lading identifies Republic and or Van Storage
as independent ocean freight forwarders
These are some of the questions which must be resolved before a
determination can be made as to whether Republic and Van Storage
violated the statute and whether Complainant is entitled to the relief
requested
Further since resolution of these issues may require an evidentiary
hearing which is not available under the informal procedure of subpart S
of the Ru1es the proceeding will be referred to the Office of Administra
tive Law Judges for acljudication under the formal procedure provided in
Subpart T of the Ru1es 46 C F R 502 311
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED That the decision of the Settlement
Officer be and hereby is vacated
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the proceeding be remanded to the
Office of Administrative Law Judges for acljudication under Subpart T of
19 F M C