97-6038. Ever Freight International Ltd., Sigma Express Inc., and Mario F. Chavarria dba Transcargo Intl.Possible Violations of Sections 10(a)(1) and 10(b)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984; Order of Investigation and Hearing  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 11198-11199]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-6038]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
    [Docket No. 97-04]
    
    
    Ever Freight International Ltd., Sigma Express Inc., and Mario F. 
    Chavarria dba Transcargo Intl.--Possible Violations of Sections 
    10(a)(1) and 10(b)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984; Order of 
    Investigation and Hearing
    
        Ever Freight International Ltd. (``Ever Freight'') is a tariffed 
    and bonded non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVOCC) located at 18th 
    Floor, Kam Sang Building, 255-257 Des Voeux Road Central, Sheung Wan in 
    Hong Kong. Ever Freight holds itself out as an NVOCC pursuant to its 
    ATFI tariff FMC No. 001, filed June 17, 1996.
        Ever Freight currently maintains an NVOCC bond, No. 8941414, in the 
    amount of $50,000 with the Washington International Insurance Company, 
    located in Schaumburg, Illinois. Pursuant to Rule 24 of Ever Freight's 
    tariff, Washington International Insurance Company also serves as the 
    U.S. resident agent for purposes of receiving service of process on 
    behalf of Ever Freight International Ltd.
        Ever Freight is believed to have been established by former 
    employees of Goldline Ltd., an NVOCC which has operated without a 
    tariff or bond since May 1995.\1\ Likewise, Ever Freight is believed to 
    have operated as an NVOCC from March 1996 through June 16, 1996 without 
    benefit of the bond or tariff required by the 1984 Act. During that 
    period and at times subsequent to the filing of its tariff and bond, 
    Ever Freight participated in numerous apparent acts of misdescription 
    of cargo on shipments from Hong Kong to the U.S., in concert with U.S. 
    consignees Sigma Express Inc. and Mario F. Chavarria d/b/a/ Transcargo 
    International, among others.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Goldline currently operates under the name Comm-Sino Ltd. 
    but has adopted numerous pseudonyms in the past, including Harvesta 
    Ltd., Gain Sharp Trading, Truest Ltd., Vastmas Intl. Ltd. and 
    Wellsources Ltd. A formal investigation, FMC Docket No. 96-19, is 
    presently underway as to Comm-Sino, alleging violations of sections 
    10(a)(1) and 10(b)(1).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Respondent Sigma Express Inc. (``Sigma Express'') is a tariffed and 
    bonded NVOCC located at 11222 La Cienaga Blvd., Suite 330, Inglewood, 
    California 90304. The President of Sigma Express is Echo Tsai. As 
    relevant herein, Sigma Express acts as the U.S. consignee and notify 
    party on certain inbound NVOCC shipments from Ever Freight.
        Respondent Mario F. Chavarria is a licensed ocean freight forwarder 
    (FMC license No. 4175) and a tariffed and bonded NVOCC doing business 
    as Transcargo International (``Transcargo''). Transcargo's offices are 
    located at 5155 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110, Hawthorne, California 
    90250. As relevant herein, Transcargo acts as the U.S. consignee and 
    notify party on certain inbound NVOCC shipments from Ever Freight.
        It appears that Ever Freight, acting as shipper in relation to an 
    ocean common carrier, misdescribed the commodity on numerous shipments 
    transported by an ocean common carrier between March 1, 1996 and 
    December 31, 1996.\2\ The shipments primarily originated in Hong Kong, 
    and were destined for Los Angeles and other U.S. ports and points. In 
    each of these instances, Ever Freight was listed as shipper on the 
    ocean carrier's bill of lading, and Ever Freight destination agents in 
    the U.S., including respondents Sigma Express and Transcargo, acted as 
    the consignee or notify party. Each shipment generally reflects that an 
    Ever Freight ``house'', or NVOCC, bill of lading was issued for tender 
    by the ultimate consignee to Ever Freight's agent upon arrival of the 
    cargo at destination, which correctly describes the commodity shipped.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ Based on import data available from the PIERS subsidiary of 
    the Journal of Commerce, Ever Freight has acted as shipper on over 
    1100 inbound shipments during the nine month period ending November 
    1996, accounting for nearly 2700 TEUs of cargo. PIERS reports that 
    the primary ocean common carriers transporting cargo on behalf of 
    Ever Freight are Sea-Land and Hanjin Shipping, which together 
    account for 95% of the total tonnage moved during this period. More 
    than 200 of these shipments originated during the months of March-
    June 1996, at a time when Ever Freight did not yet have any tariff 
    rates effective for its NVOCC services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        It further appears that the ocean common carrier rated the 
    commodities in accordance with the inaccurate description furnished by 
    Ever Freight, while the U.S. consignees of Ever Freight's shipments 
    accepted delivery of the cargo and made payment to the ocean common 
    carrier on the basis of the lower rate attributable to the inaccurate 
    commodity description. Contemporaneous with the payment of any freight 
    due to the ocean common carrier, Ever Freight's agents in the U.S also 
    would issue arrival notices and
    
    [[Page 11199]]
    
    obtain payment of the NVOCC's freight charges from the U.S. importer, 
    in each case correctly describing the commodity based on actual 
    contents shipped.
        In addition, during time periods subsequent to the filing of Ever 
    Freight's NVOCC tariff and bond in June 1996, Ever Freight appears both 
    as shipper and as a carrier issuing its own (Ever Freight) NVOCC bill 
    of lading with respect to the commodity being shipped. The rates 
    assessed and collected by Ever Freight and its U.S. agents for these 
    shipments, however, bear no relation to the rates set forth in Ever 
    Freight's ATFI tariff on file with the Commission.\3\ Since Ever 
    Freight has never subsequently modified its tariff rates, it would 
    appear that all shipments in which Ever Freight issued its NVOCC bill 
    of lading may be found to constitute violations of section 10(b)(1) of 
    the 1984 Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ Since filing its tariff in the ATFI system in June 1996, 
    Ever Freight has maintained a tariff consisting only of three 
    classes of Cargo N.O.S. rates. Ever Freight does not publish ``per 
    container'' rates, nor does it appear to charge those Cargo N.O.S. 
    rates which it does publish, inasmuch as its rates are tariffed 
    solely on a weight/measurement (W/M) ton basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (``1984 Act''), 46 
    U.S.C. app Sec. 1709(a)(1), prohibits any person knowingly and 
    willfully, directly or indirectly, by means of false billings, false 
    classification, false weighing, false report of weight, false 
    measurement, or by any other unjust or unfair device or means, to 
    obtain or attempt to obtain ocean transportation for property at less 
    than the rates or charges that would otherwise be applicable. Section 
    10(b)(1), 46 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1709(b)(1), prohibits a common carrier 
    from charging, collecting or receiving greater, less or different 
    compensation for the transportation of property than the rates and 
    charges set forth in its tariff. Under section 13 of the 1984 Act, 46 
    U.S.C. app. Sec. 1712, a person is subject to a civil penalty of not 
    more than $25,000 for each violation knowingly and willfully committed, 
    and not more than $5,000 for other violations. Section 13 further 
    provides that a common carrier's tariff may be suspended for violations 
    of section 10(b)(1) for a period not to exceed one year, while section 
    23 of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1721 provides for a similar 
    suspension in the case of violations of section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 
    Act. Finally, section 19(b) of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. app. 
    Sec. 1717(b), provides that the license of a freight forwarder shall be 
    suspended or revoked if it appears that the licensee is no longer 
    qualified to render forwarding services to the public or has willfully 
    failed to comply with any provisions of the 1984 Act.
        Now therefore, it is ordered, That pursuant to section 10, 11, 13, 
    19 and 23 of the 1984 Act, 46 U.S.C. app. Secs. 1709, 1710, 1712, 1717 
    and 1721, an investigation is instituted to determine:
        (1) Whether Ever Freight International Ltd., Sigma Express Inc., 
    and Mario Chavarria dba Transcargo International, violated section 
    10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by directly or indirectly obtaining 
    transportation at less than the rates and charges otherwise applicable 
    through the means of misdescription of the commodities actually 
    shipped;
        (2) Whether Ever Freight International Ltd., in its capacity as a 
    common carrier, violated section 10(b)(1) of the 1984 Act by charging, 
    demanding, collecting or receiving less or different compensation for 
    the transportation of property than the rates and charges shown in its 
    NVOCC tariff;
        (3) Whether, in the event violations of sections 10(a)(1) and 
    10(b)(1) of the 1984 Act are found, civil penalties should be assessed 
    against Ever Freight International Ltd., Sigma Express Inc. and Mario 
    F. Chavarria dba Transcargo International and, if so, the amount of 
    penalties to be assessed against any or all of the parties;
        (4) Whether, in the event violations of sections 10(a)(1) and 
    10(b)(1) of the 1984 Act are found, the tariff of Ever Freight 
    International Ltd. should be suspended;
        (5) Whether, in the event violations of sections 10(a)(1) of the 
    1984 Act are found, the freight forwarding license of Mario F. 
    Chavarria should be suspended or revoked; and
        (6) Whether, in the event violations are found, an appropriate 
    cease and desist order should be issued against any or all of the 
    parties.
        It is further ordered, That a public hearing be held in this 
    proceeding and that this matter be assigned for hearing before an 
    Administrative Law Judge of the Commission's Office of Administrative 
    Law Judges at a date and place to be hereafter determined by the 
    Administrative Law Judge in compliance with Rule 61 of the Commission's 
    rules of practice and procedure, 46 CFR 502.61. The hearing shall 
    include oral testimony and cross-examination in the discretion of the 
    Presiding Administrative Law Judge only after consideration has been 
    given by the parties and the Presiding Administrative Law Judge to the 
    use of alternative forms of dispute resolution, and upon a 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 matters in issue is such that 
    an oral hearing and cross-examination are necessary for the development 
    of an adequate record;
        It is further ordered, That Ever Freight International Ltd., Sigma 
    Express Inc. and Mario F. Chavarria dba Transcargo International are 
    designated as Respondents in this proceeding;
        It is further ordered, That the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement 
    is designated a party to this proceeding;
        It is further ordered, That notice of this Order be published in 
    the Federal Register, and a copy be served on parties of record;
        It is further ordered, That other persons having an interest in 
    participating in this proceeding may file petitions for leave to 
    intervene in accordance with Rule 72 of the Commission's rules of 
    practice and procedure, 46 CFR 502.72;
        It is further ordered, That all further notices, orders, and/or 
    decisions issued by or on behalf of the Commission in this proceeding, 
    including notice of the time and place of hearing or prehearing 
    conference, shall be served on parties of record;
        It is further ordered, That all documents submitted by any party of 
    record in this proceeding shall be directed to the Secretary, Federal 
    Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, in accordance with Rule 118 
    of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, 46 CFR 502.118, 
    and shall be served on parties of record; and
        It is further ordered, That in accordance with Rule 61 of the 
    Commission's rules of practice and procedure, the initial decision of 
    the Administrative Law Judge shall be issued by March 6, 1998 and the 
    final decision of the Commission shall be issued by July 6, 1998.
    Joseph C. Polking,
    Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 97-6038 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
03/11/1997
Department:
Federal Maritime Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
97-6038
Pages:
11198-11199 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 97-04
PDF File:
97-6038.pdf