18.10.2013 Views

Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION<br />

DOCKET No 75 44<br />

E S B INCORPORATED<br />

v<br />

MOORE MCCORMACK LINES INC<br />

ADOPfION OF INITIAL DECISION<br />

January 17 <strong>19</strong>77<br />

This proceeding is before the <strong>Commission</strong> on exception from Complain<br />

ant E S B Incorporated to the Initial Decision of Administrative Law<br />

Judge William Beasley Harris in which he determined that Respondent<br />

Moore McCormack Lines Inc had not violated section 18b 3 of the<br />

Shipping Act <strong>19</strong>16 by collecting freight charges in excess of those<br />

provided in its tariff for the transportation of synthetic resin from<br />

Philadelphia to Santos Brazil No reply to the exception was received<br />

Complainant excepts toI the denial of its motion for judgment on the<br />

pleading and 2 the denial ofreparation<br />

After a careful examination of the record we concur with the Presiding<br />

Officer s findings and ultimate conclusions and adopt his Initial Decision<br />

subject to the discussion below<br />

As to Complainant s first contention on exception d1e record shows<br />

that the complaint was served on Respondent by mail on October 29<br />

<strong>19</strong>75 The <strong>Commission</strong> s cover letter although stating that Complainant<br />

had requested the shortened procedure provided in Rule 11 46 C F R<br />

502 181 ofthe <strong>Commission</strong> s Rules ofPractice and Procedure the Rules<br />

referred by error to the informal procedure under which the answer to<br />

the complaint should be fIled In reply Respondent fIled an affidavit<br />

received by the <strong>Commission</strong> on November 20 <strong>19</strong>75 consentina to the<br />

informal procedure under Subpart S of the Rules 46 C F R 502 301<br />

I<br />

As the amount claimed exceeded 5 000 00 the Presiding Officer advised<br />

Respondent by letter of November 21 <strong>19</strong>75 that the informal procedure<br />

was inapplicable and that Complainant had requested the shortened<br />

procedure This was a necessary clarification of the misunderstanding as<br />

I<br />

Subpart S 46 C F R 502 301 et seq of tbe Commilllon Rule of Practice and Procedure provide for an<br />

informal proceedtna conducted by asettlement oft icer tor the udicatJon of c1alm not in excelsof 000 00<br />

480 <strong>19</strong> F M C

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!