Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

TABLE OF COMMODITIES

Carbon Black. Gulf ports to La Pallice, France. 611.
Cotton. Gulf ports to Mediterranean ports. 611.
Lumber. Eastbound intercoastal. 387.
Oil, lubricating. Gulf ports to Spanish Mediterranean ports. 611.
Paper. False classification. 483.
Propane gas tanks. Puerto Rico and Florida. 603.
Road Rollers. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf ports to Indonesia. 343.
Tinplate. U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic ports to Mediterranean ports. 611.
Trailers. Puerto Rico and Florida. 603.
Wood pulp. Swedish Baltic ports to U.S. North Atlantic ports. 202.
Wood pulp. Fernandina, Fla. to Marseilles, France. 611.

801

INDEX DIGEST

(Numbers in parentheses following citations indicate pages on which the

particular subjects are considered]

ABSORPTIONS. See also Port Equalization.

Where member of conference absorbed discharging costs on two shipments,
contrary to conference regulations, and claimed this was due to a broker's error,
evidence that those shipments had previously been booked with another confer-
ence member, with a request for a reduction below conference rates, is not suf-
ficient to justify the conclusion that rebates or concessions had been granted
knowingly in violation of section 16-Second, where neither intent to grant a
lower rate nor a deliberate failure on the part of the carrier to keep itself in-
formed was shown. The evidence, however, was sufficient to support a finding
of violation of the conference agreement in absorbing discharging costs and in
failing properly to respond to the conference's request for information con-
cerning the shipments in question. Practices of Fabre Line and Gulf/Medi-
terranean Conference, 611 (637).

A carrier may absorb the difference between cost of inland transportation
to the port through which cargo would normally move and a similar cost to a
succeeding or preceding port of call where emergency situations require, pro-
vided the carrier normally calls at both of those ports. City of Portland v.
Pacific Westbound Conference, 664 (678).
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. See Agreements under Section 15;

Capital Necessarily Employed; Intercoastal Operations; Practice and Pro-

cedure; Subsidies, Operating-Differential.
ADMISSION TO CONFERENCE. See Agreements under Section 15; Sub-

sidies, Operating-Differential.
AGENTS. See Intercoastal Operations (Sec. 805(a)); Section 804 Waivers.
AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 15. See also Absorptions ; Brokerage; Con-

tract Rates ; Port Equalization ; Rebates.
-In General

Although one court has said that the Board has authority to forbid parties
from acting under an agreement not approved, the Board will not decide the
question where a conference proposes to put into effect a dual-rate system under
an approved conference agreement, since section 15 of the Shipping Act gives
the Board authority to approve, disapprove, cancel, or modify agreements and
section 25 provides that the Board may reverse, suspend, or modify, upon such
notice and in such manner as it deems proper, any order made by it. Con-
tract Rates—North Atlantic Continental Freight Conference, 98 (104).

Under section 15, the Board has the broadest power to disapprove new or
existing agreements. The Board's power to approve, disapprove, cancel, or
modify an agreement between carriers is derived from section 15, as amplified

803

by section 25 providing "that the Board may reverse, suspend, or modify, upon
such notice and in such manner as it deems proper, any order made by it." Id.
(104).

The provisions of section 23 of the Shipping Act requiring complaint or formal
Board proceedings and a full hearing apply to order relating to violations of the
Act referred to in section 22, and not to orders approving agreements between
carriers referred to in section 15. If the withdrawal of approval of an agree-
ment between carriers is a "sanction" under section 9 of the Administrative
Procedure Act, the imposition of the sanction is clearly "authorized by law."
Id. (104).

The possibility that the differential in a dual-rate system initiated under an
approved conference agreement will result in unjust discrimination, is of such
importance that the status quo of conference carriers with respect to such rates
should not be changed pending completion of the Board's investigation into the
matter. For the carriers to put the system into effect prior to completion of
the inquiry would operate to the detriment of the commerce of the United States.
Id. (105).

Congress by section 15 of the Shipping Act authorized ocean carriers to com-
bine their efforts and regulate their rates, and the carriers were given exemption
from the penalties of the antitrust laws if their agreements met with Board
approval. In foreign as in domestic commerce agreements between carriers
resulting in elimination of competition are not permitted without gorernment
regulation. The Board has complete power to approve and disapprove new or
existing conference agreements so that the Board may see to it that these
agreements and the conference actions from time to time under them are not
unjustly discriminatory or unfair and do not operate to the detriment of the
commerce of the United States or violate the law. Contract Rates-North At-
lantic Continental Freight Conference, 355 (368).

While only the effectuation of unapproved agreements between carriers or
other persons subject to the Act violates section 15, a complaint of violation
in the effectuation of an approved agreement is not significantly deficient where
complainant also alleged that a port equalization rule represented an unapproved
agreement, and in view of complainant's request for an order requiring an
amendment to the port equalization rule, the allegation of violation of section 15
constitutes a request for partial disapproval of the agreement and the rule
made thereunder. City of Portland v. Pacific Westbound Conference, 664 (674).

The Shipping Board in section 15 Inquiry, 1 U.S.S.B. 121, required that every
agreement between carriers, whether oral or embodied in a basic conference
agreement, tariff, or other document be filed for approval unless the agreement is,
when measured by the standards of section 15, a routine one authorized by an
approved basic conference agreement. A judicial standard for determining
agreements which require approval under section 15, as distinguished from
routine conference activities, was laid down in Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. United
States, 211 F. 2d 51. The Court, in holding that the Board erred in refusing to
"suspend” the operation of a dual-rate system and in not remanding that issue
to the Board, necessarily considered the Board authorized to determine, as a
matter of law, from the construction of documents in relation to each other
and according to the standards specified in section 15, whether an agreement
between carriers has been necessarily authorized by an approved conference
agreement. Pacific Coast Europen Conference-Payment of Brokerage, 696

« AnteriorContinuar »