[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 21, 2010)]
[Pages 42445-42446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17786]



[Docket No. 10-06]

Yakov Kobel and Victor Berkovich v. Hapag-Lloyd America, Inc., 
Limco Logistics, Inc., and International TLC, Inc.; Notice of filing of 
complaint and Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (``Commission'') by Yakov Kobel and Victor 
Berkovich, hereinafter ``Complainants,'' against Hapag-Lloyd America, 
Inc. (``Hapag-Lloyd''), Limco Logistics, Inc. (``Limco''), and 
International TLC, Inc. (``Int'l TLC''), hereinafter ``Respondents.'' 
Complainants assert that Respondent Hapag-Lloyd is a corporation 
registered under the laws of the State of New Jersey and is an ocean 
carrier ``duly registered/licensed with Federal Maritime Commission.'' 
Complainants assert that Respondent Limco is a corporation registered 
under the laws of the state of Florida and an ocean transportation 
intermediary licensed by the Commission as a ``non-vessel ocean carrier 
(NVOCC).'' \1\ Complainants assert that Respondent Int'l TLC is duly 
registered under the law of the State of Washington and is an ocean 
transportation intermediary licensed since July 24, 2008 as an NVOCC.

    \1\ The Shipping Act of 1984 and Commission rules refer to 
``non-vessel-operating common carriers''or NVOCCs. No such term 
``non-vessel ocean carrier''exists in the Commission's regulations 
or the Shipping Act of 1984.

    Complainants assert that Respondents: Failed to return a damaged 
container in Respondents' custody to Complainants, and subsequently 
shipped the damaged container; failed to provide proper bills-of-lading 
at the time of shipment and provided the bill-of-lading to Complainants 
five months after shipping, unilaterally changed the bill-of-lading to 
name an individual other than Complainants as exporter and consignee; 
demanded ``false, excessive and unearned shipping charges''; and 
liquidated three of five containers.
    Through these actions, Complainants allege that Respondent Int'l 
INC engaged in practice as an ocean transportation intermediary without 
a license and accepted cargo for an unlicensed ocean transportation 
intermediary in violation of sections 8 and 19 of the Shipping Act and 
in violation of section 10(b)(2)(11). Complainants allege that 
Respondents Limco and Int'l TLC violated sections 8 and 10(b)(2)(A) of 
the Shipping Act by ``providing services not in accordance with then 
published tariff and service contract'' rates.
    Complainants allege that Respondents violated section 10(b)(4)(D) 
of the Shipping Act because they ``provided a service and engaged in 
unfair practice in their loading or unloading of freight.'' 
Complainants allege that Respondents violated sections 10(b)(4)(E) and 
10(b)(10) of the Shipping Act by ``unreasonably refusing to deal or 
negotiate and settle Complainants' claims for damages'' to one 
container and loss of all three containers. Complainants also allege 
that Respondents Limco and Hapag-Lloyd ``knowingly and willingly 
accepted cargo from an ocean transportation intermediary (Int'l TLC) 
that did not have a bond, insurance, or other surety from May 9, 2008 
to July 23, 2008 in violation of section 10(b)(11)(12) of the Shipping 
Act.'' Finally, Complainants allege that Respondents Limco and Int'l 
TLC ``knowingly disclosed valuable information concerning the nature, 
kind, quantity and destination of property delivered to them by 
Complainants to a third party identifying Complainants as shipper and 
consignee, without Complainants' consent in violation of section 
10(b)(13) of the Shipping Act.''
    Complainants request that the Commission order Respondents: (1) To 
answer the charges made by Complainants; (2) to pay to Complainants 
$500,000 for reparations for actual injury and $500,000 for additional 
damages; (3) to pay any other damages to Complainants that may be 
determined just and proper; (4) to pay Complainants' attorney fees and 
costs incurred; and take any such other action or provide other relief 
as the Commission deems just and proper.
    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. The hearing 
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 
July 14, 2011 and the final

[[Page 42446]]

decision of the Commission shall be issued by November 14, 2011.

Karen V. Gregory,
[FR Doc. 2010-17786 Filed 7-20-10; 8:45 am]