Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

TRANE CO v SOUTH AFRICAN MARINE 379
were also minor arithmetic errors in computation of the alleged over
charge as discussed above 10
As a result of the special conference Igranted complainant leave to
file an amended complaint naming the real party in interest as complainant
and to explain the various discrepancies discussed above In so doing I
overruled respondent s objections that complainant had submitted his
case and was not entitled to further opportunity to fortify and clarify it I
explained my reasons and cited appropriate authorities for these rulings
See Notice of Rulings Made During Special Conference cited above pp
4 5
Pursuant to these rulings an amended complaint was file4
and served
on September 2 1976 in the name ofTrane Southern Africa Pty Ltd as
complainant This time complainant seeks 1 989 04 in reparation instead
of 1 989 07 requested in the original complaint However as in the first
complaint there are again errors in computation 12
The amended complaint alleges that complainant Trane Southern Africa
Pty Ltd is a corporation organized under the laws ofSouth Africa
located in Johannesburg South Africa and that it is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Trane Company of La Crosse Wisconsin the original
complainant In an attached memorandum of facts it is stated that Trane
Southern Africa was the consignee of the two shipments involved herein
and paid respondent the ocean freight charges it billed In addition to
the export declaration and invoice originally submitted complainant has
now submitted an export packing tally as well as other materials For the
second shipment in addition to the export packing tally and bill of lading
originally submitted complainant has submitted the pertinent export
declaration the invoice and declaration of value an affidavit ofthe traffic
manager of the shipper Trane Company and a notarized certificate by
the same man stating that the export declaration had listed an incorrect
10
There was in addition a typographical error in the complaint with regard to the second shipment This related to
tbe listing ofa 25 surcharge The correct entry should have been 25 percent surcharge
II
n the rulings cited I acknowledged tbat there comes atime when the record in an administrative proceeding
must be closed and reopening canno longer be tolerated citing Fiola Mercante Grancolombiana v F MC 373 F
2d 674 679 D C Cir 1961 and I C C v Jersey City 322 U S 503 51415 1943 However both this Commission
and the courts have stated that they expect trial judges to help ascertain the truth and not merely sit by passively
calling balls and strikes I cited numerous casesfor this proposition such as Madep ac S4 Industria de Madeiras v
Figueiredo Navegaco SA alkla Frota Amazonica S A Docket No 7445 Order on Remand July 20 1976
European Trade Specialists Inc et al v Prudential Grace Lines Inc et al Docket No 748 May 28 1976 p 24
Scenic Hudson Preservation Con v Federal Power Commission 354 F 2d 608 620 2d Cir 1965 Isbrandtsen Co
v United States 96 F Supp 883 892 S D NY 1951
11 As 1 pointed out earlier for the first shipment the correct computation for overcharge would be 364 51 not
364 16 which latter amount is shown on both the original and amended complaints For the second shipment the
correct computation for overcharge would be 1 624 91 not 1 624 88 shown on the amended complaint The original
complaint had actually shown the correct calculation of the overcharge for this shipment 3 575 39 less 1 950 48
original complaint p 3 The correct total overcharge for bothshipments would be 1 989 42 not 1 989 07 shown in
tbe original complaint nor 1 989 04 in the amended complaint 364 51 plus 1 624 91 Although minor errors tbe
continued appearance in the amensled complaint ofsuch mistakes isnot commendable especially since some of these
mistakes are obvious on the face of the complaint For example on page three of the amended complaint wherethe
allegedly proper charge for the second shipment is calculated the figures 1 439 90 359 25 and 154 36 are shown
as totalling 1 950 51 instead of 1 953 51 and 25 of 1 439 90 isshown as 359 25 instead of 359 98 In acase
arising under section 18 bX3 of the Act it is important to make surethatacarrier charges no moreorless than what
is specified in its tariffs and practitioners before the Commission ought to exercise some care before submitting or
agreeing tocalculations which may form the basis for an award of reparation
19 F M C