Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

CARBORUNDUMCOvROYAL NETHERLANDS 43
a Claims by shippers for adjustment of freight charges will be considered only when
submitted in writing to the carrier within six months of date of shipment Adjustment of
freight based on alleged error in weight measurement or description will be declined
unless application is submitted in writing sufficiently in advance to pennit reweighing
remeasuring or verification of description before the cargo leaves the carrier s
possession any expense incurred to be bome by the party responsible for the error or
by the applicant if no error is found
On May 6 1975 Carborundum filed this complaint with the Commis
sion
The complaint includes theabove mentioned information regarding the
nature of the cargo Additionally the complaint includes a copy of a
January 21 1975 letter from complainant toOFC transmitting respond
ent s invoice for the shipment inqu estion In this letter complainant
states
The commodity covered by this bill of lading is SiGcon Carbide Abrasive Grains This
material is not to be confused with SiGcon Carbide Fused Crude as the crude material
in itself is not synonymous with Silicon Carbide except that Aluminum Oxide like
Silicon Carbide may be either crude or ingrains Again the material in this
shipment was Silicon Carbide Abrasive Gcains and we must concur with your claim for
reclassification as Abrasive Grain
The attached invoice is dated September 27 1973 lists as consignee
Gore Bros Ltd ofHalf Way Tree Jamaica and describes the shipment
as 77 drums of Sic Grain to be shipped per stupment 09443 Bill of
Lading No 147 covering the shipment also refers to shipment 09443
and lists Gore Bros Ltd under the heading Address arrival noticeto
DISCUSSION
The presiding Administrative Law Judge denied the claim in question
both on the basis of respondent stariff rules and on the basis of failure to
meet the burden ofproof
The Administrative Law Judge found the ciaim should be denied
because the claim is based on a change in description of commodity
shipped and respondent stariff Rule 116 quoted above prohibits adjust
ment in rates based on error in description unless the request for
adjustment is brought prior to the cargo leaving the carrier spossession
The Administrative Law Judge discusses at some length complainant s
contention that this claim does not involve a change in description but
merely involves a question of which tariff item more properly applies to
the given description The Administrative Law Judge aiso discusses
whether the Commission sdecision in Kraft Foods v Moore McCormack
Lines lnc U FMC 320 I974 is applicable and whether it would
preclude recovery here In Kraft the Commission had found that a tariff
rule similar to Rule 116 would preclude recovery of a claim which was
based on alleged error in weight or measurement The Administrative
Law Judge found that the import of Kraft was such that it should logically
be extended to also prohibit adjustments based on error in description
where the tariff rule speciSes that weight measurement and description
FMC