NCBFAA Says NVOCC Language in Ocean Shipping Act Needs Changes
The National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America is telling Congress that some of the language about Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (or NVOCCs) and "Ocean Transport Intermediaries" in the Ocean Shipping Act does not make sense, because these intermediaries do not control cargo placement aboard a vessel, and most of the time, they do not set detention and demurrage charges.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
NCBFAA said in a position paper it shared with Congress that its members are intermediaries between shippers and ocean carriers.
"While we understand there may be instances where NVOCCs are held to the same standards as ocean carriers, the Senate’s bill fails to recognize the fact NVOCCs do not have control, influence or decision-making ability with regards to a particular voyage, cargo placement aboard a vessel or any other operational aspect of a shipment, nor do they set detention and demurrage charges in most cases," the group said.
The group noted that one section of the bill prohibits common carriers and ocean transport intermediaries "from certain retaliatory conduct to include 'refusing, or threatening to refuse, cargo space accommodations when available' or 'resort[ing] to other unfair or unjustly discriminatory methods.'"
Commenting on that proposed language, the association said that "NCBFAA believes this language should be limited to ocean common carriers -- not to include NVOCCs or OTIs, as our Members do not have oversight of cargo space accommodations."
It also said that the term ocean transport intermediaries covers ocean freight forwarders, and NCBFAA said it is unaware of any retaliatory claims against freight forwarders. It noted that the Federal Maritime Commission has no jurisdiction over ocean freight forwarders that are not located in the U.S.
"The NCBFAA supports the proposed language on detention and demurrage rules overseen by the FMC. However, it is important to understand that NVOCCs cannot certify detention and demurrage charges in most cases, as these rates are ultimately set by the terminal operator (MTO) and/or the ocean carrier (vesselcarrier)," the group wrote. "In most instances, NVOCCs (or freight forwarders) merely pass through the detention or demurrage charges that the MTOs and/or ocean carriers impose. In any instances where an NVOCC imposes its own detention or demurrage charges, then the FMC rules and proposed certification should apply. NCBFAA believes the draft should be modified to limit the applicability to NVOCCs when acting pursuant to their own detention and demurrage rates, if any, not those who are merely passing through the MTO/ocean carrier charges."