Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

356 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Administrative Law Judge Marshall s restrictive interpretation of the
Commission s Order of Investigation Failure to exhaust that remedy
evidences that Petitioner abandoned its attempt to interrogate those chief
executive officers Therefore this exception is denied
Petitioner has also excepted to rulings by Administrative Law Judge
Marshall wherein he prohibited Petitioner from discovering evidence
regarding the service offered by Respondents in the Japan Atlantic Coast
of the United States trades pursuant to Agreement No 9975 an
agreement similar to those at issue here and the ruling by Administrative
Law Judge Marshall wherein he prohibited Petitioner from adducing
evidence at the hearing regarding that service In view of the disposition
made of this case regarding the question of monopoly as is hereinafter
more fully explained and assuming Administrative Law Judge Marshall
was in error in prohibiting that discovery and in refusing to receive
evidence regarding the Japan Atlantic Coast of United States service that
error is harmless Even if Petitioner had been permitted to adduce
evidence showing the nature of and extent of Respondents service
between Japan and the Atlantic Coast ofthe United States that evidence
would not be a substitute for the lack of proof of the totality of the trade
inthe Pacific Therefore this exception is denied
During the entire period covered by this investigation there has existed
in the transpacific trades several agreements among carriers serving those
trades whereby those carriers fix the rates at which cargo will be carried
Two of those agreements include the Japan U S Pacific Coast trades
They are the Trans Pacific Freight Conference of Japan Korea TPFCJIK
and the Pacific Westbound Conference PWC The former covers the
trade from Japan and Korea to Alaska Hawaii and the Pacific coast of
the U S and Canada The latter covers the trade from the Pacific coastof
the U S and Canada to Japan Korea Taiwan Hong Kong Philippines
Viet Nam Cambodia Laos and Thailand
Each RespOndent is and has been a ll1ember of both conferences In
addition to Respondents there were 12 to 15 other members of the
TPFCJ K and 8 to 13 other members of the PWC during the period
under investigation
Administrative Law Judge Kline found that Respondents taken as a
group have a monopoly of the Japlijl to California and the Japan to the
United States Pacific Coast conference trades In order to find that
Respondents have a monopoly it is necessary first to define the relevant
market in which the monopoly is said to exist Although the Presiding
that he
Officer did not define the relevant market specif1cally it appears
found that market to be the inbound conference trades from Japan to
California and from Japan to the United States Pacific Coast That
definition is not correct
In order to determine the relevant market it is necessary to consider
the services affected and the geographic areas involved In determinina
those services it is necessary to identify market alternatives that buyers
19 F M C