Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

864
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
In accordance with the requirement of section ZZ of tile Shippinll Act of 19 16 that
complaints MUst be filed within two years from the time the cause of action accrues in
order for an award of reparation to be entered a miscJassification claim was timely filed
where it was tiled within two years of the paYl entof the freipt notwithstanding that a
request for an adjustment based on the alleged error in description had not been
presented to the carrier in writing before the shipment left the carrier s custody Id
S74
Tar1l1 d II ltatlolU aIflbl uUy
Where the bill of lading described the commodity as beinll in balls and this
description was found in the carrier s tariff carrier was not permitted to submit
additional billinll based on a hiper tariff for the commodity in other pack ing In
United States v Gull Reflnin Company Z68 uS S4Z 19ZS it was held that when a
commodity shipped is incl lded in more than one tariff desillllation thllt which is more
specific will be held applicable and where two descriptions and tariffs are equally
appropriate the shipper is entitled to have applied the one specifying the lower rate
Union Carbide Inter America Inc v Venezuelan Line 166 169
In a misclassification dispute where the shipper claimed that a carllo of rubber sheets
and lapes should have been classified Under the tariffitem Jar rubber commodities titled
Synthetic Not Articles or Materials manufactured therefrom there was no merit to
the shipper s contention that the carrier s tariff was ambiauous inasmuch as all synthetic
rubber is manufactured from petroleum products and other hemicals Other than
Rubber Synthetic and Rubber Crude or Raw all rubber catellories in the tariff
described specific products or lIroups of products and the item in question was
sufficiently clear as published to advise synthetic rubber experts and laymen alike that
butyl bales or other unprocessed unvulcanized forms of synthetic rubber were the only
types of goods entitled to the Rubber Synthetic rate Crest1ine Supply C01 lQration
v The Concordia Line and Boise Griffin Steamship Co Inc Z07 ZIZ
Where the provisions of a conference tariff relatinll to the assessment of handling
charges oncertain containers tendered at the carriers container yards was ambiauous as
to whether such charges were applicable to tenders made at yards within terminal dock
areas the ambiguity would be resolved in favor of the shjppers Thus reparation was
awarded to shippers which had tendered containers to llontainer yards within terminal
dock areas It appeared that the conference intelded to assess a handling charlie on
some containers and not others and in view of the fact that some carriers maintained
container yards within theIr terminal docllJacilitles while others did not the fair
construction of the tariffwould be that a handlinll charae could properlybe assessed on
containers tendered at container yards not within the terminal dock area It would be
expected all other things belnll equal that the costs incurrel by carriers maintaio ing
container yards outside thelr terminal dock areas would be areater Thus it would not
have been unreasonable for carao tendered at a cOntainer yard within a termInal dock
area not be assessed such a charge Dow ChemicaiInternational Inc v
Al erican
President LInes Ltd S31 S40S41
Tnul 1UUIl
ruJ
Trade name rules items of carriers tariffs which prohibit the use for commodity
rating pU1 lQses of bUls of lading describing goods by trade name govern only the rating
of cargo by the carrier at the time of shipment and cannot be Invoked as a bar to a later
showing in a proper proceeding before the Commission as to the exact nature of the
19 F M C