Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

TOEI KOGYO CO v SEA LAND 785
Aggregate freight charges payable pursuant to the rate applicable at the
times of shipment amounted to respectively 317 76 inelu handling
charge 2 531 38 2 002 00 and 2 302 16 inelu handling charge
Aggregate freight charges at the rate sought to be applied amount to
277 07 inelu handling 2 186 19 1 729 00 and 2 007 37 inelu
handling The differences sought to be waived or refunded total 953 67
There were only two other shipments of the same commodity which
moved via Sea Land during the same time period at the rates involved in
this application Those other two shipments are the subject of another
Special Docket application S0 495 Universal Nolin UMC Industries v
Sea Land because there the shipper rather than the consignee bore the
freight charges and would be the proper beneficiary of any waiver of
collection or refund That other application involves the same commod
ity origin and destination shipper and consignee
Sea Land offers the following as grounds for granting the application
4 Sea Land Tariff No 234 FMC No 106 and ICC No 92 naming mini Iandbridge
rates from U S Atlantic and Gulf seaport cities to Far East ports was a reissue of
Tariff No 201 FMC No 74 and ICC No 72 which became effective September 15
1975 On original page 507 Attachment No I it brought forward without change a
special rate of 66 50 W M in Item No 719 1536 30 applying to Japan Group I ports
including Tokyo as provided in Rule No 5 This rate had initially been established to
meet the same total rate published by a competing carrier in its mini Iandbridge tariff
The rate was subject to an expiration date of January 31 1976 as explained in Rule No
10 on original page 86 Attachment No 2 The expiration date was subsequently
extended to June 30 and July 31 1976 on 1st revised page 507 3rd 4th and 5th revised
pages 86 Attachment No 3
In February 1976 a shipper of milk coolers requested Sea Land s sales representative
to extend the 66 50 rate to December 31 1976 so that he could continue to sell his
products competitively with local Japanese manufacturers The sales representative
proposed this request by letter dated February 13 1976 Attachment No 4 It was
approved by Sea Land s Pacific Division pricing headquarters in Oakland and the
shipper so informed verbally on February 20 Instructions to publish the extension of
the expiration date were teletyped March 30 to the Elizabeth N J office for processing
through the tariff publishing officer Attachment No 5
Concurrently Sea Land was processing a general increase in rates to become effective
May I 1976 in Tariff No 234 corresponding to a similar general increase in all water
rates taken by the Far East Conferences Special rates which Sea Land had agreed to
maintain in effect to a date beyond May I were of course not to be subjected to the
general increase Unfortunately due to administrative error Sea Land failed to except
Item No 719 1536 30 from the general increase and the rate of 66 50 was increased to
77 00 on 3rd revised page 507 Attachment No 6 On June 23 this error was
discovered by pricing personnel and it was corrected by immediate filing of 7th revised
page 507 Attachment No 7 with an effective date of June 25
The erroneous rate of 77 00W M was in effect from May I through June 24 In
addition to the shipment described in paragraph I Attachment No 8 on which
permission to refund 40 69 is sought there were three additional shipments as shown in
Attachment No 9 on which permission is sought to waive collection of a portion of the
charges The rate of 77 00W M was assessed but the consignee paid charges based on
the rate of 66 50W M on each
Section 18 b 3 of the Shipping Act 1916 46 use 817 as amended by
Public Law 90298 and Ru1e 6 b Special Docket Applications Ru1es of
19 F M C