Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

DOW CHEMICAL INC v APL 543
where loose cargo may be received for stuffing into acontainer in addition
to its on dock facilities for so stuffing loose cargo into containers and as
to the latter on dock facility no notice need be given to the Conference
Chairman other than the elsewhere required notice of the location of the
carrier s assigned terminal dock and 2 each carrier also may have
within the entire port terminal area either one offdock C Y or one on
dock C Y where shipper packed containers are received Thus the CY
authorization is more restrictive than the CFS authorization The end
result is that loose cargo may be received and stuffed into containers
either at the offdock CFS if
any or at the dock area itself but shipper
Container Yard in
packed containers may be received only at the single
the port terminal area whether the CY is located in the terminal dock
area of whether the CY is located outside that terminal dock area but
within the port terminal area
From the foregoing it is clear tIult the dispute arises because Tariff Rule
70 BX1 a provided that on and after August 13 1973 handling charges
under Rule 19 would be assessed on shipper packed containers tendered
to carrier at his CY or dock whereas Tariff Rule No 19 c 6 was
amended effective August 13 1973 to provide that the exemption from
paying the handling charge which exemption theretofore applied to
cargo tendered at CY CFS or carrier s dock and moving
under the
provisions of Rule No 70 B would thereafter apply only to cargo
tendered at CFS or carrier s dock and moving under the provisions of
Rule No 70B In other words after August 13 1973 while Rule No
70 B provided that shipper packed containers tendered to carrier at
CY or dock would
pay a handling charge nevertheless after August 13
1973 Rule No 19 c 6 provided that cargo
tendered at CFS or
carrier s dock would not pay the handling charge
In my opinion the majority s interpretation does not take into
consideration all provisions ofthe tariff or other relevant factors including
practices in the ports which restrict the areas within the ports to which
shipper packed containers may be tendered Iagree that tariff ambiguities
should be resolved in favor of the shipper nonetheless the totality of the
tariff Storage Practices at Longview Wash 6 F M B 178 1960 at 182
and all pertinent facts must be considered in arriving at a reasonable
interpretation of the tariff Thomas G Crowe v Southern S S Co I
D S S B 145 1929 at 147 In the case before us there are other tariff
provisions and other facts which negate or at least clarify the ambiguity
which seems to result from comparing only Rules Nos 70B I a and
19 cX6
First there is Tariff Rule No 70 3 which defines Container Yard as
the location designated by carrier in the port terminal area where containers
packed with goods are received or delivered
Also Tariff Rule l a contains a provision which permits a carrier to
designate locations for the receipt of non containerized cargo and for the
19 F M C