John S. James Co.’s Post

Five Compliance Best Practices for … Customs Broker Management (Part II) https://bit.ly/4fbrY6i #Antitrust #Businesses #Broker

Five Compliance Best Practices for … Customs Broker Management (Part II) https://bit.ly/4fbrY6i #Antitrust #Businesses #Broker

⚖️ Supreme Court Ruling Empowers Freight Carriers with Enhanced Legal Rights   In a significant development reported by John Gallagher, Chief Washington Correspondent for FreightWaves, the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a ruling that could potentially enhance the legal powers of freight carriers. The court’s decision overturns a 40-year precedent of deference given to federal agencies, which could have far-reaching implications for regulations governing freight carriers.   Before we read further, let’s understand the Chevron Doctrine. This is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. Essentially, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. However, this doctrine was overruled by the Supreme Court in June 2024.   The high court decided 6-3 to overrule the Chevron doctrine, a policy that requires lower courts to defer to regulatory agencies in legal challenges of regulations that agencies have interpreted from ambiguous statutes. This change could mean that policies affecting all modes of freight transportation may now have to undergo heightened scrutiny at the agency level before they are rolled out in order to stand up to legal challenges.   In light of this Supreme Court ruling, John S. James Co. is ready to assist our clients in navigating any potential legal and regulatory changes and ensuring the smooth operation of their supply chains. Whether you are a first-time importer, seasoned exporter, importing bearings or exporting chemicals, find out how we can support your business by visiting johnsjames.com.   #FreightCarriers #LegalRights #SupremeCourtRuling #FreightWaves #JohnGallagher #JohnSJamesCo #CustomsBroker #FreightForwarder #SupplyChain #ChevronDoctrine

Availability of Class Action Complaints at the FMC The Federal Maritime Commission issued a policy statement today making clear it is an appropriate venue where private parties may bring class actions to resolve disputes covered by the statutes the agency administers. The guidance yields important benefits to parties that might otherwise be hesitant to initiate legal actions at the FMC for fear of retaliation or because the amount of money in dispute may be less than the cost of litigation for an individual claimant. The availability of the class action mechanism will help create a more level playing field for private parties seeking protection from potentially unlawful conduct. Today’s announcement is a continuation of efforts by the Commission in recent years to reduce barriers for private party litigants seeking redress of potential Shipping Act violations. The Commission issued a policy statement in December 2021 making clear that shippers’ associations and trade associations can file complaints on behalf of others alleging violations of the law. The Commission successfully implemented a process for Charge Complaints, as set out in the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA 2022), which provide individuals with a simplified and expedited way to challenge some invoices. More than $3.5 million in fees have been voluntarily waived or refunded by common carriers through the Commission-administered Charge Complaint process since June 2022. Further, the Commission is ensuring the timely adjudication of the record number of pending proceedings that have been filed at the Commission in recent years by adding resources to the Office of the Administrative Law Judges. https://lnkd.in/e6fCd4kD

🚢 Jurisdiction of French courts in shipping disputes: what you need to know! 🇫🇷 The French Supreme Court has recently confirmed that forum selection clauses in bills of lading, particularly those outside the EU, might not always hold up in French courts. This decision could have a major impact on shipping contracts involving French parties, especially post-Brexit. If your bill of lading refers to a non-EU court, it’s worth reviewing to avoid surprises. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eN6aZmkK 💡 Want to learn more about this ruling and its implications? Contact our Claims team at claims@nnpc.nl. #ShippingLaw #Logistics #FrenchLaw #InternationalTrade #LegalInsights

The Nature of the Time Limit for the Exercise of Claims for Loss or Damage to Goods under the Hague-Visby Rules – Limitation or Expiry? The recent judgement no. 185/2024 of the 4th Section of the Murcia Provincial Court dated 8 February 2024, reviewing the case law referring to the nature of the one (1) year period for the exercise of claims for loss or damage during carriage by sea under a bill of lading established by the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading signed on 25 August 1924, as amended by the Protocols of 23 February 1968 and 21 December 1979, the Hague-Visby Rules, has taken a position in favour of the figure of expiry of time. The aforementioned ruling therefore joins other rulings in favour of expiry of time, such as, for example, No. 269/2023 of 26 January 2023 of the 1st Section of the Provincial Court of Pontevedra, to which it refers to summarise the controversy. The latter, in turn, cites Supreme Court judgments No 328/1983 of 7 June 1983, No 43/1984 of 31 January 1984, No 339/1984 of 30 May 1984, No 56/1985 of 29 January 1985 and No 583/1985 of 11 October 1985, which declare that the time limit provided for in Article 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules is one of limitation. Referring to other judgments which, on the contrary, have declared that this period is a limitation period and not an expiry period, the aforementioned judgment no. 185/2024 of the Murcia Provincial Court, which is the subject of this article, also agrees with the judgment of the Pontevedra Provincial Court of 26 January 2023 in that, although article 278. 4 and Article 286 of the Maritime Navigation Act, when regulating the contractual carrier’s recourse actions against the actual carrier and the actions arising from the charterparty, use the expression “limitation” not “expiry”, this should not lead to error since the Hague-Visby Rules are of preferential application to national regulations and their interpretation must be made in accordance with them. We invite you to continue reading on www.aiyon.es AIYON Abogados #hayavisbyrules #cargodamage #timebar #expiration https://lnkd.in/dzADrqCz

📣 **Important Legal Precedent Set in Shipping Agency Agreements** An SRO issued in 2014 by the Licensing Authority of the National Board of Revenue (NBR) mandated amongst others that foreign Main Line Operators (MLOs) represented by local shipping agents could only terminate their agency agreements once accounts are settled. This measure was taken at the instance of the local shipping agents purportedly to ensure proper inward remittance of agency fees and other charges accrued on behalf of the MLOs at the office of different statutory regulatory authority through the outgoing local agents. However, this regulation was being exploited by some local agents to unjustly delay their lawfully executed termination procedures by their foreign principals, hindering the foreign principals' ability to exit agreements. In response to this misuse, our Head of Chambers, Mr. Tanjib Alam, Barrister and Senior Advocate, along with Partner Mr. M. Saquib Uzzaman, Barrister and Advocate of the Supreme Court, took a stand on behalf of COSCO Container Lines Company Ltd. by challenged the SRO through a judicial review petition before the Hon'ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. The case travelled all the way up to the Hon'ble Appellate Division, which affirmed that while agency agreements are inherently terminable, they must be terminated only after accounts are settled. The Apex Court further mandated that the accounts be settled within 2 months through mediations out of court by the private trade body which acts as a collective bargaining agent of all local agents. This landmark decision raises a crucial point: **Will this precedent now compel local agents to facilitate timely account settlements to honor their obligations? Is a private Trade body being a collective bargaining agent of all local agents, in a position to objectively deal all grievances be it from local agents or their foreign principal?** The ruling emphasizes that while the termination of agency agreements remains a right, it must be executed in a fair and timely manner, with account settlements concluded within a reasonable period, which is also voluntarily agreed by the parties through the agreement. This case underscores the evolving landscape of regulatory compliance and the importance of fair practices in international trade. 💼⚖️ #LegalUpdates #InternationalTrade #AgencyAgreements #RegulatoryCompliance #LegalPrecedents

RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV: The Supreme Court has reached a verdict on the force majeure case, addressing a "fundamental point of principle." This decision holds significant importance within the legal realm. 15 May 2024 OVERVIEW The Supreme Court, in its ruling on RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18, which was delivered on Wednesday, May 15, 2024, has granted MUR's appeal, thereby reinstating the verdict of Jacobs J. The court, in complete agreement, has determined that the force majeure clause contained within the parties' Charter Party Agreement (COA) allows MUR to temporarily halt its selection of vessels for performance due to anticipated delays in RTI's payment of freight in US dollars, as stipulated by the COA. These delays are a direct result of the sanctions imposed on RTI's parent company. The primary matter presented to the Supreme Court concerned the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision to support the tribunal's ruling in the underlying arbitration. The tribunal has come to a conclusion that MUR is unable to invoke force majeure as it has failed to meet the requirements outlined in clause 36.3(d). According to this clause, an event or situation can only be deemed force majeure if it cannot be "overcome by reasonable endeavors (sic)." The Court of Appeal, in line with the tribunal, contended that a problem or situation is deemed resolved only when all its adverse effects have been completely averted. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court adopted a distinct perspective, acknowledging the appeal as a profoundly significant principle with the potential to be universally applicable to all force majeure clauses. The central issue being considered is whether the existence of an informal solution to a contractual deadlock might impede a party from invoking force majeure. The court raised concerns about the potential consequences of non-contractual solutions, as they could weaken the importance of the parties' contractual rights and overlook the essential role of certainty in commercial agreements. #arbitration. #Force_Majeure

📜 The Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill, 2024: Modernizing India’s Maritime Law 🚢 The Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill, 2024 was introduced in Parliament on 09/08/2024 to replace the almost century-old Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. This new Bill is designed to align India’s maritime laws with international conventions like the Hague-Visby Rules and the Hamburg Rules. It aims to enhance transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the shipping industry by clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of carriers, shippers, and consignees. By strengthening legal protections and reducing ambiguities, the Bill promises better handling of maritime disputes and increased trust in India’s trade ecosystem. The bill is yet to be passes in the Lok and Raja Sabha Read the draft here : https://lnkd.in/gWyFEiBA #MaritimeLaw #CarriageOfGoodsBySea #ShippingIndustry #LegalReforms #TradeAndLogistics

📢 Federal Maritime Commission Monitoring Supply Chain and Reviewing Surcharges   The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is actively monitoring surcharges and fees along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts, especially in light of recent work stoppages. Their goal? To enhance transparency in the supply chain and ensure that all fees are reasonable and justifiable. The FMC is open to public input and encourages anyone who feels they’ve been improperly charged to report their concerns, utilizing their Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS) for assistance. With strict oversight and accountability, the FMC is dedicated to maintaining fair practices in our industry.   At John S. James Co., we’re committed to supporting your shipping needs with expert guidance through every step of the logistics process. Our team of U.S. Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders is here to ensure that your operations run smoothly and compliantly, no matter the circumstances.    Discover more about how we can assist you in navigating the complexities of international trade: johnsjames.com   #ShippingTransparency #FMC #FreightForwarding #CustomsBroker #SupplyChain #Logistics #InternationalTrade #JohnSJamesCo