Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

830 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
classification of its principal s cargo under a particular tariff item thus betraying the
shipper by misdescribing the cargo The description furnished by the forwarder
accurately described the commodity shipped and accordingly no uqiust orunreasonable
practice was engllled in by the forwarder Id lS4
A shipper did not sustain its burden of proof that a freight forwarder violated section
17 of the 1916 Act by failing to apprise its principal the shipper of any dispute or
discrepancy as to the rate to be applied to the principal s goods The record would not
aIlow any conclusion on whether the forwarder had properly informed its shipper prior
to shipment of a discrepancy in the applied rate Id lSS
Section 17 of the 1916 Shipping Act does not require that forwarders publish their
regulations and procedures Nor has the Commission either in General Order 4 or
elsewhere by rule or decision mandated that a licensed freight forwarder must establish
and publish a special body of regulations Id lS6
A freight forwarder did not violate section 17 of the 1916 Shipping Act when it failed
to abide by its shipper s instructions in describing the commodity shipped There was no
evidence of collusion between the forwarder and the carrier The forwarder properly
described the cargo as it was required by the Act to do The aIleged scienter of the
forwarder was irrelevant to a proceeding in which the issue was simply a determination
ofthe nature of the commodity shipped Id lSiIS7
The matter of whether a freight forwarder violated section 17 of the 1916 Shipping Act
by aIlegedly not following the usual routine of a forwarder in informing its shipper that
the carrier was objecting to a proposed tariff classification and In obtaining additional
product classification from the shipper is remanded for further hearing with respect to
the forwarder s obligations Id lS7
Carrier did not violate section 16 of the 1916 Shipping Act by discriminating in favor
of Norfolk forwarders and against forwarders In ports and at airports In this case the
forwarder was selected by the shipper As to alleged discrimination in favor of another
shipper there was no evidence that the carrier had ever carried cargo for that shipper
Id lS8
Carrier did not engage in an uqiust and unreasonable practice in violation of section
17 of the 1916 Shipping Act in that its agent did not Inform the shipper of the agent s
inability to bind the carrier to a rate initially quoted by the agent The agent s
representation was not conclusive as to the rate applicable and the shiper s president
was thoroughly aware through experience of the inability of an agent to quote an
authoritative rating since the conference and carriers werethe final arbiters of the proper
rate to be charged Id 160
An application for an ocean freight forwarder license which was commonly owned
with a produce broker for a client engaged in the movement of produce in the export
commerce of the United States was independent from shippers within the meaning of
section 1 of the 1916 Shipping Act and Its application would be granted Sequoia
Forwarders Co 182 186 190
The Zane li case does not stand for the proposition that every agency or other
relationship between a forwarder and an export shipper Is proscribedby the independ
ence requirement of section I of the 1916 Shipping Act The statutorY lequirement of
absolute independence is absolute only to the extent that it absolutely bars the
licensing of any applicant whose activities cause it to be included in one of the
prohibited categories of section 1 of the Act It is not a standard requiring an applicant
to be absolutely independent of shipper interests The section I independence
requirement does not preclude all relationships between forwarders on the one hand
and shippers and consignees onthe other Id 187 188
19 F M C