Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

60
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
that determination of this claim should be founded on the reasoning
adopted by Mr Pine regarding the discretionary nature of Rule 28 and the
ambiguity he found in the rule
Notwithstanding the claimed policy of OOCL that Oakland and San
Francisco are the same port for equalization purposes we consider these
to be two separate ports to which the provisions of Rule 28 apply In the
case ofeach cargo OOCL discharged it at Oakland The port ofdischarge
specified in the bill of lading was San Francisco It is clear therefore that
OaCL had discharged its cargo at a discharge port other than that
specified in the bill of lading The carrier then had only
two lawful
options Both of these options were provided by Rule 28 Under its terms
the carrier could
1 move the cargo to the port of discharge specified in the bill of
lading or
2 forward the cargo direct to a point designated by the consignee
From the record the carrier apparently availed itself of both options
with respect to the various shipments It is our conclusion that having
elected to act under RuJe 28 the carrier became bound by the provisions
thereof The rule states without ambiguity and without any discretion
vested in the carrier that the carrier may arrange ground transportation
as he did here provided the consignee pays the cost of drayage from the
port of discharge specified in the bill of lading to the point designated by
the consignee In short once the carrier has elected to aiTiulge ground
transportation when it discharges cargo ata port other than that specified
in the bill of lading the consignee pays only the amount which it would
have cost him to arrange transportation from the proper port to apoint of
destination
We find no discretionary quality in the rule with regard to the collection
of trucking charges That collection is allthatis at issue here We take no
position as to the discretion vested in the carrier regarding
whether or not
he decides to arrange transportation at all That issue does not here arise
Further we think this Rule 28 to be clear as to who bears the
responsibility for gro 1nd transportation charges We hold that the carrier
is responsible for the cost of transportation from the actual port of
under the
discharge to the port of discharge specified in the illl of lading
clear terms of its own tariff We therefore concur in the lward of
reparation in the amount of 363 87 granted by Settlement Officer Pine
and adopt his decision to that extent
SEAL S FRANCIS C HURNEY
Secretary
19 F M C