The Federal Maritime Commission continues to consider a request to delay its new final rule on demurrage and detention billing requirements, said Rich Roche, who chairs the Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Subcommittee of the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America.
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match together (e.g. "forced labor").
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons to find either word (e.g. AD/CVD CBP).
Acronyms: Use all capital letters (e.g., ACE).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., tariffs +Canada).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., FDA -alert).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "metal" instead of "metals" or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
Shipping, trucking and freight forwarding associations urged the Federal Maritime Commission to reject a request from a group of major ocean carriers seeking to push back the effective date of the FMC’s new demurrage and detention billing requirements (see 2402230049), saying in public comments to the commission that the delay would cause widespread confusion within the shipping industry. But two of those groups said the FMC should at least consider giving the industry more time to adapt to the rules before punishing violators with fines.
CBP Executive Director for Trade Policy and Programs Brandon Lord told an audience during a Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee meeting that its work groups had offered "very thoughtful, forward-leaning recommendations," and that he was particularly excited about their new vision of a customs brokers exam.
HMM Co. Ltd., formerly known as Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd., has charged unfair demurrage and detention fees for inland transportation since 2020, Samsung Electronics America (SEA) alleged in a complaint filed with the Federal Maritime Commission on May 30.
The Federal Maritime Commission recently sent the shipping and freight forwarding industry guidance about the FMC’s February final rule that set new demurrage and detention billing requirements (see 2402230049). The six-page document, provided to us by the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, includes 19 frequently asked questions and answers related to the rule, covering questions including timelines for disputing detention and demurrage invoices issued by ocean carriers and terminal operators, extended dwell fees assessed by U.S. ports and the definition of “billed party.”
The Federal Maritime Commission is considering whether to push back the effective date of a final rule it issued in February that set new demurrage and detention billing requirements (see 2402230049), it said in a notice released June 7. The commission said the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association asked it to extend the rule’s May 28 effective date “by at least 90 days or such longer period as may be deemed appropriate.” The FMC is accepting public comments by July 1 about whether it should delay the rule.
Detention and demurrage billings appear to have returned to pre-pandemic levels after spiking during the last few years, said Jason Guthrie, an official with the Federal Maritime Commission's Bureau of Trade Analysis.
The Federal Maritime Commission's recently issued final rule on detention and demurrage billing requirements was "silent" on some of the recommendations the National Shipping Advisory Committee has offered in recent months (see 2403070061), said Rich Roche, NSAC member and senior vice president at Mohawk Global.
Flexport violated U.S. shipping laws by charging unfair detention and demurrage fees and millions of dollars in other "accessorial charges" at unreasonable rates, U.S.-based Giti Tire said in a complaint filed with the Federal Maritime Commission May 16. It alleged Flexport's invoices lacked required information, were "excessive and unreasonable" and duplicated charges also invoiced to another party, leading to $12.7 million in damages.
PKDC, a Colorado-based furniture distributor, accused ocean carrier CMA CGM of refusing to meet its commitments to the distributor, coercing "extracontractual" payments from PKDC, and charging detention and demurrage for situations outside the distributor's control. The furniture distributor, in a complaint to the Federal Maritime Commission dated May 10, said it paid over $1 million in unreasonable detention and demurrage and that CMA CGM cost it over $12 million by refusing to meet its quantity commitments under the service contract.