Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

382
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
the amended complaint was now filed There was no further indication of
any other jurisdictional defect and considering the fact that respondent
did not dispute the erroneous allegations regarding the status of the
named respondent I had no cause to question the status of South
African Marine Corp N Y It was only after complainant s final reply
was filed that I became aware that this named respondent is not a
common carrier at all but the general agent of three common carrieI s to
wit South African Marine Corporation Ltd
14
Springbok Shipping Company Ltd
Springbok Line Ltd and
Not only therefore do both complaints not name or allege a violation
by a common carrier as required by section 22 ofthe Act but they ask for
a finding of violation of section 18 b 3 of the Act which by its terms is
limited to common carriers or conferences of such carriers stating in
pertinent part
Nocommon carrier by water inforeign commerce orconference ofsuch carriers shall
for the
charge or demand or collect a greater or less or different compensation
transportation of property than the rates and charges which are specified in its
tariffs on tile with the Commission 46 U S C 817 Emphasis added
A carrier s agent such as the named respondent in both complaints
does not transport property is not a party to a Conference agreement
consisting of carriers and has no tariff of its own It is the carrier
principal not the agent that does these things and stands liable for
violations of section 18b 3 or for any section of the Act for which
standards of conduct are imposed on such carriers There is no doctrine
that the carrier may stand aloof while the agent assumes full responsibility
for violation of the carrier s duties under the Act See Helle ic Lines
Ltd ection 16 First and 17 Violations 7 F M C 673 1964 Cont
Distrib g Co Inc v Cia Nacional De Nav 2 U S M C 724 725
1945 I
Indeed the very bills of lading submitted in this case state on
theirfaee aclear disclaimer by South African Marine Corporation N Y
14 These tacts were stipulated by the panies in Caterpillar Overseas SA v South Ni ican Marine Corp NY
Docket No 7639 inadocument filed in that case siJned by counsel forthe Parties on September 22 and 23 1976
The names of the troc carriers are also shown on the pertinent tarifts and on the back ofthe bills of ladina issued on
behalf of these carrien by South African Marine Corporation N Y as aaenta These facts are therefore oftlciaUy
noticeable Rule 13f 46CFR 502 226 The bUls of1aclina submitted inthe present case were xerox copics ofone siie
only which did not show the names 01 the carriers on the back side The front paae oltbe bW olladina however
does contain the notation Ship operated for account of and shows abarely lqible aroup of stamped letters and
numbers which on close inspection shows that the 8rst shipment bill ofladina No 128 WBS carried by carrier no
2 Springbok Une Ltd accordina to the back side of the bills of lading filed in Docket No 7639 The second
shipment billof lacUna No 238 was carried by JCarrier no I South African Marine Corporation Ltd accordina
to the same source South African Marine Corporation Ltd tiie carrier is not to be confused with South African
Marine Corporation N Y the agent and named respondent in the present case See Docket No 7639 cited above
Initial Decision September 30 1976
Since counsel for complainant who slaned the abovementioned stipulation is also counsel lor complainant in tbe
present case and tbe same firm represents the named respondent In bOth casesbut these facts reaardina the status of
the named respofl1ent was not brouabt to my attention by counsel apparenUy counael foresaw no legal sipiftcance
to these facts Otherwise I presume they would bave brouaht luch facts to my attention
18 In the Hellenic case the carrier unsucccssfully tried to avoid Uability for violatioRs ofsectioRs 16 First and 17 of
the Act by araulna that its aaent in Djibouti Frencb Somallland had been responsible Tbe carrier ofcoune was
named as respondent In Cont Dlsuib ll
Co Inc the Commission flatly held that two companies named as
72 5
respondents were aaents and as such are not sutUect to the act 2 U S M C at p
19 F M C