Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

INDEX DIGEST
violation of section l8b 3 of the Shipping Act 1916 as amended the requested
reparation was granted on a finding that the shipper proved its case SCM Corp v
Seatrain International S A and Seatrain U K Ltd 417 419 418
The Commission could not ratify the presiding officer s approval of
a settlement
agreement entered in a proceeding on a claim for reparation on an alleged freight
overcharge where a violation of section 18 b 3 of the Shipping Act of 1916 had not
been established by the presiding officer and where respondents had specifically advised
the Commission that the settlement was not to be construed as an admission of any
violation on their part An agreement to settle a claim for reparation based on an
allegation of a violation of section 18 b 3 can be approved only on an affirmative
finding that such violation occurred The Federal Minister of Defense Federal Republic
of Germany v Republic International Forwarding Company and Republic Van and
Storage of Los Angeles Inc 569 570
A presiding officer s ruling dismissing a proceeding on a claim for reparation for an
alleged freight overcharge was vacated and remanded for whatever action the officer
and the parties deemed warranted where the dismissal had been premised on the
Commission s approval of a settlement agreement between the parties which did not
contain a finding of a violation of section l8b 3 and which the Commission was thus
without authorityto approve Id 570
The fact that the law and Commission rules encourage settlements and engage in
every presumption that such settlements are valid and lawful does not mean that the
Commission must act as a rubber stamp in evaluating settlements especially when the
settlements themselves require approval under section 15 of the 1916 Shipping Act
Refrigerated Express Lines AASIA Pty Ltd v Columbus Lines 581 582 584
Complaint alleging improper eviction of vessel to permit berthing of respondent s
vessel and that respondent s vessel caused a break in the bus bar conductor system
which had the effect of precluding the movement of container cranes at another terminal
with the result that complainant could not utilize dockside space at that terminal is
dismissed with prejudice The parties had entered into a statement of satisfaction and
settlement whereby respondent had agreed to pay complainant 10 000 in satisfaction of
the alleged claims upon dismissal of the complaint with prejudice Sea Land Service
Inc v The City of Anchorage Alaska and Totem Ocean Trailer Express Inc 617
Complaint seeking refund of overcharge is dismissed where the claim at issue had
been properly settled subsequent to the filing of the docket with the Commission There
was no tariff or regulatory provision which barred the parties from informally taking
such action Caterpillar Overseas S A v Springbok Line Ltd 640 643 Caterpillar
Overseas S A v South African Marine Corp Ltd 644 647 Caterpillar Overseas
S A v Springbok Shipping Co Ltd 648 651
While in ordinary circumstances a carrier could be admonished for taking unilateral
action in settling aclaim for overcharges while a proceeding was before the Commission
relating to the claim and thereby prejudging the decision that might be rendered the
settlement officer finds from a regulatory standpoint that the conference tariff did not
prohibit an informal settlement of the rate issue and there was therefore no legal
necessity to bring the matter before the Commission for decision This position is based
upon the fact that an informal settlement of the claims was not time barred by Rule 16 of
the tariff as the carrier apparently believed A careful review of the applicable rule
revealed that it did not extend to errors involving the mere misapplication of a rate
which was the issue in the docket Id 642 647 650
It is preferable that a settlement officer who dismisses a claim for reparation for
alleged overcharges on the grounds that the claim has been paid in full make specific
19 F M C
861