The Cargo Letter |
Top Story: UPS Acquisitions Take Center Stage
Section A: Trade, Financial & Inland News
Section B: FF World Air News
Section C: FF World Ocean News
Section D: FF in Cyberspace
Section E: The Forwarder Broker World
United States v. Tucor Int'l, Inc.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
January 25, 2001
Government Regulation/Criminal Law: defendants were engaged in the business of
motor transport within the Philippines and trucked the belongings of United
States military from Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base to a
Philippine seaport, where the belongings were loaded onto vessels bound for the
United States; the United States Dept. of Justice was in error in prosecuting
defendants for a conspiracy to fix prices for the ground transportation in the
Philippines since they were immunized against antitrust liability by Section
7(a)(4) of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. 1706(a)(4); the Department's
criminal prosecution of defendants, although based on an unreasonable reading of
the law and "faulty judgment" in not informing the District Court of
the Shipping Act's immunity provisions, was not "vexatious, frivolous, or
in bad faith," thus defendants were not entitled to reimbursement of their
attorneys
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/9thtucor.html
Shell Offshore v. Babbitt
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Jan. 12, 2001
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"): The denial of Shell's
request to use its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) tariff rate as
the cost of transporting crude oil produced from certain of Shell's offshore oil
& gas leases for purposes of calculating Shell's royalty payments due the
Interior Department was in essence the application of a new substantive rule
that required notice & comment before implementation, thus Shell was
entitled to use the FERC tariff rate to calculate transport costs for all of the
offshore oil at issue.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thshelloffshore.html
Morris v. Princess Cruises
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Jan. 10, 2001
Procedure/Admiralty Jurisdiction: removal of the case from state to federal
court based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) was
proper since the only non-diverse defendant had been fraudulently joined;
plaintiff's subsequent joinder of the non-diverse Insurers thereupon defeated
the court's diversity jurisdiction, but because the district court would have
had original admiralty jurisdiction over this action had plaintiff filed suit in
federal court in the first instance, her failure to move for remand upon joining
the non-diverse defendants waived any possible objection to removal
jurisdiction;
Maritime Torts: plaintiff's tort claims arising from the admittedly harrowing
experience suffered in Bombay after her husband had been medically evacuated
from the cruise vessel were properly dismissed since plaintiff failed to adduce
any evidence suggesting that any possible breach of duty on the part of Princess
Cruises caused harm to plaintiff or her husband.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th(9955092).html
In re Bluewater Network & Ocean Advocates
District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals
Dec. 22, 2000
Coast Guard Regulation/OPA 90: sections 4110(a) and (b) of OPA 90 indisputably
command the Coast Guard to establish compliance standards and use requirements
for tank level & pressure monitoring ("TLPM") devices by Aug.
1991; because of this "clear statutory mandate, a deadline nine-years
ignored, and an agency that has admitted its continuing recalcitrance," the
Coast Guard was directed to undertake prompt rulemaking with respect to TLPM
devices; the Coast Guard is not required to initiate rulemaking pursuant to
section 4116(c) of OPA 90 to define waters other than Prince William Sound
("other waters") over which single-hulled tankers must be escorted by
at least 2 towing vessels since the section places no clear and mandatory duty
on the Coast Guard to undertake "other waters" rulemaking.
http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/dcinrebluewater.html
Tokio Marine & Fire v. M/V FLORA
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Jan. 3, 2001
Collisions/Casualties: the District Court was not clearly erroneous in finding
as a matter of fact that outbound vessel's violation of COLREG Rule 5 (failure
to have a proper look-out) was only a relatively small contributory cause of the
collision at the Southwest Pass; the Pennsylvania Rule does not apply to
violations of Rule 8(c) (alteration of course to avoid a close-quarters
situation) since its provisions do not impose a "precise and clearly
defined duty"; appellant inbound vessel did not prove at trial that there
was a local custom in the Southwest Pass that outbound vessels must take extra
care when leaving the area to avoid a collision, and inbound vessels have the
right of way;
Comparative Fault: the District Court's finding that the inbound vessel was 80% at fault and the outbound vessel was 20% at fault was not clearly erroneous in view of the evidence presented as to the causes of the collision, including a finding that theÊ overwhelming percentage of the collision was caused by inbound vessel's violation of the port-to-port passing agreement and the lack of communication with the outbound vessel.
Please click below for other sections:
Section A
Section B
Section C
Section D
Please click below to go back to the Cargo Letter home page.
Cargo Letter Home Page
Return to the top of Section E
Written from wire stories, the Associated Press, Reuters, Hong Kong Shipping News Lloyds & other world sources.