Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

REFRIGERATED EXPRESS LINES v COLUMBUS LINES
583
and Eastern Australia to East Coast and Gulf ports of the United States
as abreakbulk carriedrom June 1 1976 at least through the year 1977
REL is furthermore guaranteed a 15 percent allocation of the meat
moving from the East Coast of Australia in the subject trade and in return
for serving ports in Northwestern Australia will be given a premium of
25 per metric ton to defray costs of handling at those ports funded by
contributions of all the lines serving the meat trade The four respondent
lines continue to be designated as the containerized carriers together with
anothercarrier namely Trader Navigation Co Ltd AtlantraffIk Express
Service which line however is limited in its operations The essentials
of these arrangements are contained in Agreement No 10250 which
consists of separate letters from the chairman of the Australian Mean
Board to each of the carriers involved together with the acceptances of
each carrier See Exhibit 4 attached to the Motion to Dismiss The other
agreements cited consist of agreements relating to loading expenses at
Northwestern Australian ports coordination of sailings the guaranteeing
of REL s allocated share and other matters implementing the basic
arrangement The Australian Meat Board apparently plays arole in all of
these arrangements for example by designating lines as breakbulk or
containerized collecting funds to pay REL the premium for servicing
ports in Northwestern Australia determining the amount of this premium
or surcharge as it is sometimes called and calling the lines to meet
with representatives of Australian exporters to arrange schedules and
capacities subject to authorities
approval by the appropriate U S and Australian
The above arrangements appear
to settle the controversy between REL
and the four respondents as well as between REL and the Australian
Meat Board 2 The complaint as originally flled alleged that the four
respondent carriers entered into a deal among themselves and the Meat
Board by which the four carriers would enjoy exclusive rights to the
carriage ofmeat from Australia in the subject trade in return for observing
maximum freight rates designated by the Board REL further alleged that
meetings were held between members of the Board and respondents
following which respondents resigned from the AustraliaEastern USA
Shipping Conference FMC Agreement No 9450 and filed tariffs
simultaneously publishing identical maximum rates resulting in the exclu
sion of all other carriers from the carriage of meat after January I 1976
The complaint alleged that these arrangements demonstrated the imple
mentation of agreements which had not been flled with the Commission
for approval in violation of section 15 of the Shipping Act 1916 the
Act and that pursuant to such alleged agreements respondents had
engaged in unlawful discrimination preference unfair devices unfair
2 REL had also commenced an action in the Australian Industrial Court under the Australian Trade Practices Act
pinsl the Australian Meat Board 88 weD as respondents herein See Ex 7 Mutual Relase attached to the subject
motion
19 F M C