Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

846 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
real damage In a claim for refund of freight charges the complainant must show that it
has paid freight or has succeeded to the claim in a valid fashion such as by assignment
Noauthorities are cited holding that a parent corporation without more has standing to
seek recovery of damages suffered by its wholly owned subsidiary corporation Trane
Co v South African Marine Corp N Y 374 378
Reparation was denied to a shipper which had been told by an agent of the carrier that
the rate to applicable a shipment of motor oil was 961cubic foot a temporary rate
applicable only to shipments between certain listed ports which was subsequently
advised that the quoted rate was in error and that the shipment rate would be 129 25
cubic foot the general commodity rate applicable to motor oil under the carrier s tarift
and which paid the higher rate under protest The port of destination stated on the bill of
lading was not among the ports eliaible for the reduced temporary rate accordingly the
shipment was required to be billed at the general commodity rate Celestial Mercantile
406
Corp v M Golodetz Co Inc 404 405
In considering claims for reparation the determination of the applicable rate shall be
based on what can be shown is the true nature of the commodity shipped
Such a
determination will be based on all the evidence of record with no single document or
piece of evidence necessarily being controlling Kraft Foods v Moore McCormack
Lines Inc 407 409 410
In preparing a bill of lading it is usually the case that the carrier in classifying and
rating a shipment must look to the information supplied to him by the shipper or freight
forwarder Elementary fairness dictates that the carrier should be entitled to rely on
such information and to charge and collect freisht in accordance with the description
supplied by the shipper To require a carrier to inquire of a shipper whether the latter s
description of the goods shipped is correct would an place undue burden on the carrier
PanAmerican Health Organization v Prudential Lines Inc 412 414
The importance of declaring in bills of lading the correct description of the cargo
shipped cannot be overemphasized The carrier has the right to expect that a shipper
will properly identify his shipment just as the shipper has the right to expect the carrier
to charge the proper rate for the type of goods actually carried An equitable rule would
seem to limit reparations based on misidentification and misrating to those cases where
the actual language used on the face of the bill of lading indicates an improper
misclassification or obvious disregard by the carrier of the descriptive language used by
the shipper Further a shipper who insists upon using a trade name rather than an
appropriate and readily available commodity index description in the filed tariff should
beheld to do so at his peril Id 415 414
A shipper was entitled to reparation where due to misdescriptions of cargo by the
shipper the bill of lading covering the shipment placed the goods shipped in an incorrect
class of commodities having a higher shipping rate than that actually authorized for the
goods shipped That the carrier was without fault with regard to the error was
immaterial Id 415
A carrier which did not deny the merits of a shipper s claim of overcharge but
nonetheless denied the claim on the ground that it was not timely filed under atariffrule
was not only within the rights under its governing tariff but was required to take the
action which it had taken The unauthorized payment of an otherwise legitimate claim in
response to the application of stimi1li e g the filing of a reparation complaint with the
Commission while denying all other similar claims in the absence of such stimuli
represents precisely the type of discriminatory practice proscribed by section 16 First of
the Shipping Act 1916 SCM Corporation v Seatrain International S A and Seatrain
U K Ltd 417 419
19 FM C