Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

514 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
ACE has no tariff on me for this service In 1972 ACE prepared a
tariff but was informally advised by the Commission s staff that fuing
was unnecessary This 1972 tariff is still the basis for ACE s rates various
surcharges and other assessments are added to the 1972 quotations to
arrive at the present charges Only ACE knows how its rates are
determined A shipper usually discovers a rate by requesting such
information from his forwarder or agent who in turn asks ACE The
record does not reveal whether ACE s tariff is available for public
inspection
American Container Express Inc a corporation owned and controlled
by the same individual who controls Austasia Intermodal Lines Inc
possesses ICC Part IV freight forwarder authority to carry containerized
export cargo general commodities from all points in Michigan and Ohio
to Michigan ports of 10
entry This Part IV operation also employs the
ACE trade name and presumably has assumed all United States functions
of Austasia Intermodal Lines Inc II
Despite the fact that two bills of
lading are required ACE apparently offers an effective door to door
service from U S inland points to Australia
Through the end of 1974 ACE carried about 8 000 revenue tons of
export cargo served 4050 United States shippers and issued 9001000
bills of lading ACE stipulated that it competes with the all water service
offered by the Conference
Administrative Law Judge Norman D Kline Presiding Officer issued
an Initial Decision holding that ACE is not a common carrier by water
subject to the Commission s jurisdiction This decision relies primarily on
the legislative history ofShipping Act section 1 When the Alexander
Committee examined the steamship industry in 1913 all water port to
port transportation was the only significant type of ocean carriage
available This fact plus certain testimony relating to the final legislation
adopted in 1916 led the Presiding Officer to conclude that the Act s
provisions are limited to water carriers physically serving U S ports 12
Several court and Commission decisions are also quoted in support of
this result 13 The second Circuit s language in Compagnie Generale
Transatlantique supra is typical
A steamship company engaged in foreign commerce with ships entering the United
States ports in such commerce is within the obligation of the Shipping Act and the
fact that the bill of lading was issued in France does not exclude it Emphasis added
10
TheIce application FF 453 of American Container Express Inc was aranted January 16 1976 subsequent to
the release of the Initial Decision herein by
This authority is reitrictedto export traffic hllving asubsequent movement
water
II Mr Glenn W Scherenbach President of Austaaia Container Express testified that Austa8ia lntennodal Lines
IDe would cease operations in the United States once American Container Express Inc received certificate
its Part IV
U Eg House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Hearingg on HR 14J37 64th Coni 1st Sess
1916 Statements of Representative Hadley at 3233 statements of biderJacobs President California Canneries
Co at 5557 and statements of maritime lawyer J Parker Kirlin at 128
1
Compagnie Generale Transatlantlque Inc v American Tobacco
Co 31 F 2d 663 665 2d Cir 1929
Armement Deppe S A v United States 399 F 2d 794 797 5th Cir 1968 Paciftc Seafarers Inc v A GA F B O
et
al 8 F M C 461 46l l96l
19 F M C