[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