Category Archives: freight forwarder

Bipartisan Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA) signed into law.

July 31, 2022 By in common carriers, D&D, Demurrage, freight forwarder, OSRA Tags: , , , , Leave a comment
assorted color cargo containers near body of water
Photo by Matthis on Pexels.com

In mid-June, President Biden signed a bipartisan bill to help US importers, exporters, freight forwarders, and other companies seeing high shipping costs and other problems since the start of the pandemic.

One highlight of the bill was to address the increasing demurrage and detention (D&D) charges which have skyrocketed in the past year. Common carriers under the new law, now have to certify that D&D charges comply with federal rules and regulations. The certification also requires common carrier invoices to include information (1) the applicable D&D rule on which the daily rate is based; (2) the applicable rate or rates per the applicable rule; (3) the total amount due; (4) the contact information for questions or requests for mitigation of fees; and (5) a statement that the common carrier’s performance did not cause or contribute to the underlying invoiced charges. The new bill requires this information, and if the common carrier does not provide the information in the invoice – then there is no obligation to pay the D&D charges.

Another highlight is the ability for individuals to submit complaints to the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) about charges from a common carrier. The FMC is empowered to conduct a prompt investigation and the common carrier would have the burden of proof to establish reasonableness of any D&D charges.

In addition to addressing D&D charges, other parts of the OSRA require the FMC to: (1) define “unfair or unjust discriminatory methods”, (2) create a shipping exchange registry to provide certain services, such as mediation of contract disputes, (3) public disclosure and publication on the FMC website of false D&D invoices and quarterly reports, a (4) place for the public to submit complaints, concerns, reports of noncompliance, request for investigation, etc, and a (5) consumer affairs office to assist, mediate and facilitate challenges and disputes involving cargo shipments.

If you have any questions how the OSRA, and or would like to update your compliance program to address the new OSRA requirements – contact David Hsu by phone/text at 832-896-6288 or by email at attorney.dave@yahoo.com.

Givens and Johnston, PLLC at Breakbulk Americas 2018.

October 5, 2018 By in break bulk, Breakbulk, compliance, Customs, freight forwarder, FTZ, heavy haul, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Breakbulk 01.jpg

Earlier this week, Givens and Johnston, PLLC attorneys – James Garland Hurst and David Hsu staffed the G&J booth at Breakbulk Americas 2018.

James and David were on hand to answer questions related to wood packaging materials and cost-effective solutions to deal with a “wood packaging material” notice from Customs. As you are aware, Customs vigorously inspects wood packaging material shipments entering the US for presence of invasive pests that damage the US ecosystem.

James and David also answered questions regarding ftz’s, bonded warehouses, import and export, compliance matters, Section 232 and 301 duties and the whole range related trade matters.

See you at Breakbulk Americas 2019! In the meantime, feel free to contact David Hsu at 832-896-6288 or by email at attorney.dave@yahoo.com for all your import, export and trade matters.

Breakbulk 02.jpg

Customs broker and freight forwarder found liable for “use of a counterfeit mark in commerce”.

July 25, 2018 By in Customs Broker, freight forwarder, trademark, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

bench girl leisure lifestyle

Photo by Marx Ilagan on Pexels.com

A New Jersey U.S. District Court found a customs broker and freight forwarder liable for trademark infringements on Nike trademarks. The customs broker was ordered to pay $240,000 in damages and the freight forwarder will pay a yet undetermined amount.

The court held the broker and forwarder liable because they determined the arrangement of transportation and creation of documents related to the importation of the shipments constituted “use in commerce” of the Nike trademarks under the Lanham Act even though forwarder argued it had no physical control or knowledge of the shipments. Unfortunately for the broker and forwarder, the Lanham Act is a “strict liability statute” and does not consider intent or lack of intent in whether someone is liable. Speeding violations are the most common type of “strict liability statute” in that the act of speeding is the violation and it is not required to have the intent to speed. In this instance, the “use of a counterfeit mark in commerce” is the violation – with intent only a factor when determining the damages.

According to the case, (Nike, Inc. v. Eastern Ports Custom Brokers, Inc., et al., D.N.J. 2:11-cv-4390, July 19, 2018), the forwarder created the bill of lading, made arrangements for the cargo, and gave the broker a POA to act on behalf of the importer. The court ultimately found the broker and forwarder “played an active role in arranging for transportation” of the footwear and took “responsibility for the goods and making representations regarding the nature of the goods”. These actions were enough of an “use in commerce” under the Lanham Act and therefore liable for the trademark infringement.

One interesting note is the forwarder lost the case because they were in default after their lawyer withdrew in 2013. Default means a party to a lawsuit was properly served and noticed, but failed to make an appearance at any of the required hearings. For example, all parties are required to provide notice of trial dates and hearing dates. Proper notices were most likely sent by Nike to the forwarder – however, on the day of trial, no one made an appearance on behalf of the forwarder and as such lost the case for because they were in default. The forwarder, being in default, did not make an appearance and had no way to present any evidence to support their position.

Definitely an interesting case and the first time I’ve heard of a forwarder and broker liable for trademark infringement.

If you have any questions about this case and are would like to know how this ruling may impact your business as a broker or forwarder, contact experienced trade attorney David Hsu at 832.896.6288 or by email at attorney.dave@yahoo.com.