[Federal Register: March 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 13002-13003]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11mr08-69]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
[Docket No. 08-01]
Nathan Freeman v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. and Shipco
Transport, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal
Maritime Commission (``Commission'') by Nathan Freeman. Complainant
asserts that he is an individual residing in New York, New York.
Complainant alleges that Respondent, Mediterranean Shipping Company
S.A. (``MSC''), is an ocean common carrier with an office in New York,
New York, and that Respondent, Shipco Transport, Inc. (``Shipco''), is
a non-vessel-operating common carrier with offices in Bayonne, New
Jersey and North Charleston, South Carolina.
Complainant asserts that he engaged a freight forwarder to arrange
for the transportation of a shipment consisting of two containers of
scrap plastic, and that the forwarder engaged Respondent Shipco to
carry such shipment from Jacksonville, Florida to the port of
[[Page 13003]]
Cotonou, Benin. Complainant also asserts that Shipco, in turn, arranged
with Respondent MSC to carry Complainant's shipment. Complainant avers
that his shipment arrived at the port of Cotonou, Benin on or about
July 6, 2006. Complainant claims that, from approximately June 2006 to
November 2006, his customs broker in Cotonou and Complainant's wife,
Christiane Freeman, the designated consignee of the shipment and
resident of Cotonou, made numerous demands to Respondents and their
agents to provide the original bill of lading for Complainant's
shipment. Complainant contends that Respondents refused to issue the
original bill of lading.
Complainant Freeman asserts that the port of Cotonou officials
require production of an original bill of lading prior to releasing the
shipment to Complainant, his wife, or his customs broker, and that
Respondents knew, or should have known, of this requirement.
Complainant also asserts that MSC wrongfully claimed that Complainant
owed MSC approximately $20,000 for demurrage charges in connection with
Complainant's shipment and that MSC refused to release the shipment
unless payment of the alleged demurrage was made. Complainant claims
that, in November 2006, the port of Cotonou customs officials
``confiscated and seized'' Complainant's shipment due to Complainant's
inability to acquire from Respondents the original bill of lading
necessary to take possession of the shipment.
Complainant alleges that Respondents violated the Shipping Act of
1984 (``the Shipping Act'') by refusing to issue an original bill of
lading to Complainant thereby preventing Complainant from taking
possession of the shipment, and that Respondents' refusal directly
caused Complainant's loss of his entire shipment and property.
Complainant also alleges that Respondents ``unreasonably, fraudulently
and deceitfully attempted to extort alleged demurrage charges'' from
Complainant in January 2007, even though Respondents knew, or should
have known, that the shipment had been previously confiscated by the
port of Cotonou customs officials. Complainant asserts that the
foregoing activities by Respondents constitute an unreasonable practice
related to the delivery of property in violation of 46 U.S.C. 41102(c)
(formerly Sec. 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act).
Complainant claims that he has been injured and damaged in the sum
of $80,000.00 for the value of the property of the shipment and seeks
this amount as reparations, or in the event of insufficient evidence of
such loss, seeks $21,367.00 as reimbursement of ocean freight, other
shipment charges, and cost of the property. Complainant also seeks an
award of reasonable attorney's fees and punitive damages, to be
determined by the Commission, for the willful, wrongful, and illegal
conduct of Respondents in their refusal to issue an original bill of
lading and release Complainant's property.
Complainant requests that the Commission require Respondents to:
(1) Answer the charges in the subject complaint; (2) cease and desist
from the aforesaid violation of the Shipping Act; (3) establish and put
in force such practices as the Commission determines to be lawful and
reasonable; and (4) pay to Complainant by way of reparations the sum of
$80,000.00 with interest, attorney's fees and punitive damages, or such
other sum as the Commission determines. Additionally, Complainant
requests that the Commission issue further order(s) as it determines to
be proper.
This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The hearing
shall include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of
the presiding officer only upon proper showing that there are genuine
issues of material fact that cannot be resolved on the basis of sworn
statements, affidavits, depositions, or other documents or that the
nature of the matter in issue is such that an oral hearing and cross-
examination are necessary for the development of an adequate record.
Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, the initial decision of
the presiding officer in this proceeding shall be issued by March 5,
2009, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by July
3, 2009.
Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4860 Filed 3-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P