[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28726]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
[Docket No. 10-10]
Draft Cargoways India (PVT.) LTD. v. Damco USA, Inc., Damco A/S,
and A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; Notice of Filing of Complaint and
Assignment
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal
Maritime Commission (``Commission'') by DRAFT CARGOWAYS INDIA (PVT.)
LTD. (``DRAFT''), hereinafter ``Complainant,'' against DAMCO USA, INC.
(``DAMCO US''), DAMCO A/S and A.P. MOLLER-MAERSK A/S (``MAERSK''),
hereinafter ``Respondents''. Complainant asserts that it is a
corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of India and
registered as a foreign corporation in the State of Virginia and a duly
licensed and bonded non-vessel-operating common carrier (``NVOCC'').
Complainant alleges that Respondent DAMCO US is a Delaware corporation
and a licensed NVOCC and freight forwarder, that Respondent DAMCO A/S
is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Denmark
and an NVOCC registered with the Commission; and that Respondent MAERSK
is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Denmark
and a vessel-operating common carrier operating in the U.S. global
trades.
Complainant asserts that Respondents violated Sections 8(a)(1),
10(b)(2)(A), 10(b)(11), 10(b)(13) and 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act of
1984, 46 U.S.C. 40501(a)(1), 41104(2) and (11), 41103(a) and 41102(c).
Complainant alleges that Respondent DAMCO A/S provided NVOCC services
to Complainant. DAMCO A/S retained MAERSK as the ocean common carrier
and DAMCO US as delivery agent for the shipments at issue. Complainant
alleges that Respondent DAMCO US ``invoiced and attempted to collect
amounts from Complainant for demurrage and detention'' on the shipments
at issue and that ``DAMCO A/S' published tariff did not contain any
demurrage and detention provisions * * *.'' Complainant alleges that
Respondent DAMCO US has ``made * * * false representations, misleading
statements or omissions in a Complaint (* * *) filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia'' pertaining
to the same shipping transactions. Complainant also alleges that
Respondents ``have repeatedly utilized a `bait and switch' scheme * * *
in misleading the shipping public, including DRAFT, * * * by utilizing
DAMCO US, DAMCO A/S, and MAERSK as interchangeable parts'' and that the
scheme is a ``practice.'' Complainants assert that by using this scheme
Respondents ``knowingly disclosed, offered, solicited and received
information concerning the nature, kind, quantity, destination,
shipper, consignee, and routing of the property * * * without the
consent of DRAFT and us(ed) that information to the detriment and
disadvantage to DRAFT.'' Complainant asserts that it ``has lost
significant business to MAERSK generated by its Indian accounts related
to subject shipments.''
Complainant states that as a direct result of Respondents'
violations of the Shipping Act, it has suffered injury. Complainant
requests the Commission: compel Respondents to answer the complaint;
find Respondents in violation of the Shipping Act; award reparations to
Complainant in the amount of $20,725.00 ``for amounts paid for
demurrage and detention'', and $150,000 for lost business and clients;
pay interest, costs and attorneys' fees; order Respondents to ``cease
and desist in the action filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Virginia * * * and to cease and desist in
attempting to collect amounts for demurrage and detention in the amount
of $174,412.50; and impose any other relief as the Commission
determines to be proper, fair, and just.
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 November 9,
2011 and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by March
8, 2012.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28726 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P