[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 6455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3016]



[[Page 6455]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 03-01]


Hual As v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority; Notice of Filing of 
Complaint and Assignment

    HUAL AS (``Complainant'') has filed a complaint against the Puerto 
Rico Ports Authority (``Respondent''). Complainant states that its 
roll-on/roll-off (``RO/RO'') vessels call at ports and terminals 
operated by Respondent in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and that it leases 
port area land from Respondent. Although some of the vehicles 
Complainant discharges at San Juan are destined for Puerto Rico, most 
are discharged for subsequent transshipment throughout the Caribbean.
    Complainant states that Respondent's marine terminal operator 
tariff sets forth wharfage rates for varying categories of commodities. 
Complainant states that the tariff provides: (1) That wharfage is 
assessed only on the inbound movement of cargo transferred from one 
vessel to another at Respondent's facilities without change in form or 
content; and (2) a 15-day free-time period for non-containerized cargo 
paying only incoming wharfage originally manifested for transshipment 
to other ports without change in form or content. Complainant states 
that the tariff does not set forth wharfage rates for transshipped 
motor vehicles.
    Complainant asserts that Respondent has charged it wharfage for 
transshipped automobiles at a $6.0629 ``Motor Vehicle'' rate rather 
than at the $1.0860 ``Transshipment'' rate, and that Respondent charges 
it wharfage on both inbound and outbound movements. Complainant states 
that, because there is no specific rate in the tariff for transshipped 
automobiles, and given the tariff's rates for transshipped cargoes, the 
tariff's structure and language is vague and ambiguous and Respondent's 
practice of assessing the higher automobile wharfage rate against 
transshipped automobiles in contrast to other transshipped cargo is an 
unreasonable practice violative of section 10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 (``Shipping Act''), 46 U.S.C. app. Sec.  1909(d)(1). 
Complainant further contends that assessing the higher automobile rate 
against transshipped cargoes when the tariff establishes lower rates 
governing transshipped cargo generally confers unreasonable preference 
and advantage upon those shippers paying the lower tariff rate and 
unduly and unreasonably prejudices and disadvantages Complainant in 
violation of section 10(d)(4) of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. app. Sec.  
1909(d)(4). Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent's assessment 
of wharfage for inbound and outbound automobile movements is 
inconsistent with the express terms of its tariff and that Respondent 
has thus engaged in unreasonable practices violative of section 
10(d)(1) of the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. app. Sec.  1909(d)(1).
    Complainant asks the Commission to issue an order finding 
Respondent to have violated sections 10(d)(1) and 10(d)(4) of the 
Shipping Act and directing Respondent to cease and desists from 
continued violations of the Shipping Act, including assessment of and 
pursuance of claims against Complainant for non-payment of disputed 
wharfage charges. Complainant also seeks recovery of the amounts it 
paid that exceed the governing tariff rate for transshipped cargo, 
reparations in amounts to be proved at trial, interest and 
reimbursement of attorneys' fees.
    This proceeding has been assigned to the office of Administrative 
Law Judges. Hearing in this matter, if any is held, shall commence 
within the time limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61, and only after 
consideration has been given by the parties and the presiding officer 
to the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as those 
described in Subpart U of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure, 46 CFR Sec. Sec.  502.401-502.411.
    The hearing, if any, shall include oral testimony and cross-
examination in the discretion of the presiding officer only upon proper 
showing that there are genuine issues of material fact that cannot be 
resolved on the basis of sworn statements, affidavits, depositions, or 
other documents or that the nature of the matter in issue is such that 
an oral hearing and cross-examination are necessary for the development 
of an adequate record. Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR 502.61, 
the initial decision of the presiding officer in this proceeding shall 
be issued by January 30, 2004, and the final decision of the Commission 
shall be issued by June 1, 2004.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-3016 Filed 2-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P