Opinion ID: 373658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Failure of Ocean Carriers To Comply with Applicable Tariffs

Text: 42 Capitol makes another unavailing argument concerning MSC's failure to offer notices of arrival. The ocean carriers' tariffs (using Sea-Land's as an example) provide that notice of arrival will be given by mail and only to one party at one address, as designated by the shipper on the bill of lading, and not later than the day when free time begins. Capitol, pointing to MSC's failure to introduce into evidence the relevant notices, claims that such a failure estops MSC from pursuing its claim for demurrage. In support of this argument, Capitol relies principally upon the Second Circuit's decision in Empire Box Corp. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 171 F.2d 389 (2d Cir. 1948). In Empire, the plaintiff sought to recover demurrage paid to a railroad for the constructive placement of loaded freight cars on its tracks. The applicable tariff required that written notice of such placement be sent. Instead, the parties had agreed that oral notice would suffice. The court held, reaffirming the canon of rigid adherence to published tariffs, that such oral waiver of the written notice requirement was ineffective and that demurrage could not be collected. See also Davis v. Henderson, 266 U.S. 92, 45 S.Ct. 24, 69 L.Ed. 182 (1924) (waiver of ICC rule requiring shipper to provide written request for railway cars ineffective); Campbell Construction Co. v. LaCrosse & Southeastern Ry. Co., 95 I.C.C.Rep. 603 (1925) (no demurrage where required written notice of arrival not given, even though actual notice received); 6 A.L.R.2d 874. 43 In the present case the ALJ found that the record is convincing that the appropriate arrival notices were given to Capitol, (and) that copies are in storage. . . . The Commission likewise indicated a finding that notice was given. In denying Capitol's petition for reconsideration, it said, (T)he fact that the TIR's indicate that the containers were in fact picked up and returned by Capitol raises the presumption that Capitol actually received arrival notices for these containers, a presumption Capitol has not rebutted. We agree with the Commission that notice was sufficiently established so as to place upon Capitol the burden of coming forward with evidence to show that such notice was, in fact, inadequate. Thus we reject Capitol's argument that MSC's failure to produce the arrival notices as part of its own case was fatal. On the showing made, it was up to Capitol to establish lack of notice as a defense, and this it failed to do. Capitol first sought copies of the arrival notices at the second pre-hearing conference, after discovery had been closed. The ALJ determined that belated retrieval of the notices at that time would be unduly burdensome to MSC, and declined to order their production. We find nothing unreasonable about this ruling. See 46 C.F.R. § 502.20(b)(2). It is true that counsel for MSC indicated, at the pre-hearing conference, that sometimes they are even oral notices, telephone calls by parties, some of the notices of arrival even came from the (NVOCC's) people themselves back in the States as well as from the carriers . . . But the ALJ was not required to treat these vague statements of counsel as establishing that written notice was not ordinarily given, nor were they sufficient reason to relieve Capitol from the consequences of its inertia throughout the discovery period. It is to be observed that Capitol's president, Charles Darmanin, nowhere denied in his written testimony that the notices were received. 12 If Capitol had, in good faith, wished to contest notice, the issue should have been affirmatively raised at an appropriate time.