The U.S. should further regionalize its supply chains to reduce dependency on China and other countries in case of future global trade disruptions, some experts said during a virtual conference this week hosted by the Washington International Trade Association. But at least one expert disagreed, saying global supply chains reduce risks, not exacerbate them.
Ian Cohen
Ian Cohen, Deputy Managing Editor, is a reporter with Export Compliance Daily and its sister publications International Trade Today and Trade Law Daily, where he covers export controls, sanctions and international trade issues. He previously worked as a local government reporter in South Florida. Ian graduated with a journalism degree from the University of Florida in 2017 and lives in Washington, D.C. He joined the staff of Warren Communications News in 2019.
Senators are working closely with the Biden administration, and believe they have its support, on a bill that could strengthen the ability of the U.S. to respond to economic coercion by foreign countries (see 2302080068). The bill, reintroduced this week by Sens. Todd Young, R-Ind., and Chris Coons, D-Del., could allow the president to lower duties on non-import-sensitive goods made by a country that lost exports due to coercive actions; increase duties on imports from the "foreign adversary" committing the coercion; and allow the U.S. to more easily facilitate trade with the coerced parties.
Congress should “pressure” the Biden administration to pursue free trade deals with the U.K., Kenya, Taiwan and others if it wants to convince U.S. allies to move supply chains out of China, said Clete Willems, a former National Security Council official. Willems, speaking during a House Financial Services Committee hearing this week, also called on the administration to join and renegotiate the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, arguing the U.S. needs to match China’s “aggressive pursuit” of trade deals, specifically mentioning the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
The Federal Maritime Commission will amend its proposed rule on unreasonable carrier conduct (see 2209130040), after industry, lawmakers and at least one federal agency said the rule was too broad, missed congressional intent and didn’t go far enough to address carriers that refuse to carry exports in favor of imports. The commission plans to issue a “supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking” to incorporate changes to the rule, FMC Chair Daniel Maffei said during a Jan. 25 commission meeting, adding that he hopes to publish the updates “as quickly as possible.”
The Federal Maritime Commission published its fall 2022 regulatory agenda, including mentions of several rules surrounding carrier practices, billing requirements and discriminatory shipping practices that it had hoped to issue in December. At least one of the rules was governed by a statutory deadline set for last month under the Ocean Shipping Reform Act.
Hong Kong-based Sterling Container Line denied allegations by U.S. logistics company SeaFair that it refused to pay for certain shipping services, saying SeaFair at times submitted inaccurate invoices and couldn’t prove they were correct. In a Dec. 26 response to the Federal Maritime Commission, Sterling said the FMC should dismiss SeaFair’s complaint for a range of reasons, including that the commission lacks the authority to award damages for a breach of contract claim.
Hapag-Lloyd violated U.S. shipping regulations when it failed to make containers available for pickup, causing demurrage charges for Wisconsin-based logistics company M.E. Dey to exceed more than $136,000, the company said in a complaint to the Federal Maritime Commission released last week. Dey said Hapag-Lloyd’s demurrage charges were “unreasonable,” and the FMC should require the ocean carrier to pay Dey reparations.
Shippers mostly supported the Federal Maritime Commission’s proposal for demurrage and detention billing requirements (see 2210070079 and 2203250028), saying in comments this month the new invoice requirements will bring more transparency to the industry. But at least two carriers continued to lobby for revisions to the proposed requirements, saying they could lead to burdensome new rules and wouldn’t result in more efficient container pickups and returns.
The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports will end a program that could have eventually imposed surcharges on dwelling containers, the ports announced Dec. 16. The fee program was meant to incentivize the movement of dwelling containers (see 2110280031), but the ports never implemented it and instead postponed it weekly (see 2207220051) and later monthly (see 2211180061) since it was first announced in October 2021 (see 2207290053).
Major ocean carrier MSC violated U.S. shipping regulations because of its unreasonable demurrage practices, U.S. metal trader CCMA said. In a complaint to the Federal Maritime Commission released this week, CCMA said it was assessed more than $114,000 in unfair demurrage fees by MSC, which levied the charges despite the containers being subject to a government hold and unavailable for pickup. The FMC should order MSC to pay CCMA reparations for its “unlawful conduct,” the complaint said.