The Federal Maritime Commission Newsroom

News

FMC Announces Five Compromise Agreements

December 11, 1997

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

FMC Announces Five Compromise Agreement

NR 97-22

Washington, D.C. 20573

CONTACT: VERN W. HILL, DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF ENFORCEMENT AT (202) 523-5783

FOR RELEASE DECEMBER 11, 1997

The Federal Maritime Commission today announced that the Commission has entered into five compromise agreements for alleged violations of the Shipping Act of 1984 ("1984 Act"). The compromise agreements are:

De Lourdes Corporation. Compromise was reached in the amount of $10,000 with De Lourdes Corporation ("De Lourdes") of Miami, Florida. The Commission alleged that De Lourdes violated section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by making shipments pursuant to a service contract when the shipments did not qualify for carriage under the contract. De Lourdes was also alleged to have violated section 19(a) of the 1984 Act by acting as an ocean freight forwarder without a freight forwarder license. Involved were automobile shipments in the United States to Brazil and Argentina Trade.

Global Asian Ltd. Compromise was reached in the amount of $30,000 with Global Asian Limited ("Global Asian") of Hong Kong, People's Republic of China. The Commission alleged that Global Asian, a tariffed and bonded non-vessel-operating common carrier ("NVOCC"), violated section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by misdescribing to the ocean common carrier certain commodities shipped from the People's Republic of China to the United States in order to obtain ocean transportation at less than the applicable rates and charges.

Laparkan Trading Limited Company. Compromise was reached in the amount of $30,000 with Laparkan Trading Limited Company ("Laparkan") of Miami, Florida. The Commission alleged that Laparkan, a tariffed and bonded NVOCC, violated section 10(b)(1) of the 1984 Act by collecting rates and charges other than those shown in Laparkan's tariff for shipments in the United States to Caribbean Trade.

Pum Yang Shipping Co. Ltd. Compromise was reached in the amount of $27,500 with Pum Yang Shipping Co. Ltd. ("Pum Yang") of Seoul, Korea. The Commission alleged that Pum Yang, a tariffed and bonded NVOCC, violated section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by making shipments pursuant to a service contract that did not qualify for carriage under the contract. Pum Yang was also alleged to have violated section 10(b)(1) of the 1984 Act by charging rates or charges other than those shown in Pum Yang's tariff for shipments in the Korea to United States Trade.

Shipair Express (HK) Ltd. Compromise was reached in the amount of $20,000 with Shipair Express (HK) Ltd. ("Shipair") of Hong Kong, People's Republic of China. The Commission alleged that Shipair, a tariffed and bonded NVOCC, violated section 10 (a)(1) of the 1984 Act by misdescribing to the ocean common carrier certain commodities shipped from the People's Republic of China to the United States in order to obtain ocean transportation at less than the applicable rates and charges.

None of the parties involved admitted any violations of the 1984 Act. The compromise agreements resulted from investigations conducted by the Commission's Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans and Seattle Area Representatives. The Bureau of Enforcement negotiated the settlements.