Washington, D.C. July 22, 2009: The Federal Maritime Commission today announced compromise agreements recovering civil penalties in the amount of $748,000.  The agreements were reached with a vessel-operating common carrier ("VOCC") and licensed and unlicensed ocean transportation intermediaries (OTIs) (both non-vessel-operating common carriers ("NVOCCs") and ocean freight forwarders).  In concluding the compromise agreements, the parties did not admit any violations of the Act or the Commission=s regulations.  The compromise agreements resulted from investigations conducted by the Commission=s area representatives located in Los Angeles, New York, South Florida, and Washington, D.C.  Staff attorneys with the Bureau of Enforcement negotiated the compromise agreements.  The compromise agreements are: 

Abco International Freight (USA), Inc. dba Abco Logistics   Abco International Freight (USA), Inc. dba Abco Logistics (AAbco@) is a licensed OTI located in El Monte, California.  It was alleged that Abco obtained ocean transportation of property at rates less than those that would have otherwise been applicable in violation of section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (A1984 Act@) by accessing service contracts to which Abco was not a signatory, by improperly describing commodities shipped, and through the unlawful use of carrier provisions for equipment substitution.  In compromise of civil penalties arising from these allegations, Abco paid $40,000. 

AME Logistics LLC   AME Logistics LLC (AAME@) is an OTI located in Jamaica, New York.  It was alleged that AME operated as an unlicensed NVOCC, without a license, tariff, or proof of the required surety, in violation of sections 8 and 19(a) and (b) of the 1984 Act.  In compromise of civil penalties arising from these allegations, AME paid $20,000. 

Cargo Cargo Logistics Inc.  Cargo Cargo Logistics Inc. (ACargo Cargo@) is a licensed OTI located in Carson, California.  It was alleged that Cargo Cargo obtained ocean transportation of property at rates less than those that would have otherwise been applicable in violation of section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by accessing service contracts to which Cargo Cargo was not a signatory, by improperly describing commodities shipped, and through the unlawful use of carrier provisions for equipment substitution.  In compromise of civil penalties arising from these allegations, Cargo Cargo paid $40,000.

China United Transport, Inc. dba C.U. Transport, Inc.  China United Transport, Inc. dba C.U. Transport, Inc. (AChina United@), a licensed OTI located in City of Industry, California, allegedly violated section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by obtaining ocean transportation for property at less than the rates that would otherwise be applicable by accessing service contracts to which it was not a signatory.  During the same time period, China United allegedly violated section 10(b)(2)(A) of the 1984 Act by providing transportation that was not in accordance with the rates and charges set forth in China United=s published tariff.  In compromise of civil penalties arising from these allegations, China United paid $30,000. 

Grandwin Logistics, LLC  Grandwin Logistics LLC (AGrandwin@), a licensed OTI located in Alhambra, California, allegedly violated section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by obtaining ocean transportation for property at less than the rates that would otherwise be applicable by accessing service contracts to which it was not a signatory.  It also was alleged that Grandwin violated section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by allowing others to obtain ocean transportation for property at less than the rates that would otherwise be applicable by permitting non-signatories to utilize its service contracts.  Further, it was alleged that Grandwin violated section 10(b)(2)(A) of the 1984 Act by providing transportation in the liner trade that was not in accordance with the rates and charges set forth in Grandwin=s published tariff.  In compromise of civil penalties arising from these allegations, Grandwin paid $35,000. 

Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.  Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. ("Hanjin") is a vessel-operating common carrier with headquarters in Seoul, Korea.  It was alleged that Hanjin violated section 10(b)(1) of the 1984 Act by allowing shippers to obtain transportation for property at less than the rates or charges established in its tariffs or service contracts by means of permitting use of service contracts by persons who are neither signatories nor affiliates to those contracts.  Also, Hanjin allegedly violated section 10(b)(2)(A) of the 1984 Act by providing transportation that was not in accordance with the rates and charges set forth in its published tariff.  Further, it was alleged that Hanjin violated sections 10(b)(11) and 10(b)(12) of the 1984 Act by entering into service contracts with, and providing transportation services to, OTIs that did not have tariffs, licenses or bonds as required by the 1984 Act.  In compromise of these allegations, Hanjin made a payment of $440,000. 

Pacific Transit Services, Inc. dba Cargozone Pacific Transit Service, Inc. dba Cargozone (Pacific Transit) is a licensed OTI located in Inwood, New York.  It was alleged that Pacific Transit obtained ocean transportation of property at rates less than those that would have otherwise been applicable in violation of section 10(a)(1) of the 1984 Act by accessing service contracts to which Pacific Transit was not a signatory, by improperly describing commodities shipped, and through the unlawful use of carrier provisions for equipment substitution.  In compromise of civil penalties arising from these allegations, Pacific Transit paid $40,000. 

U & S Shipping, Inc.  U & S Shipping, Inc. (AU & S Shipping@) is a licensed OTI located in Sanford, Florida that operated as an ocean freight forwarder in the United States.  It was alleged that in violation of the Commission=s freight forwarder regulations, U & S Shipping shared freight forwarding compensation on shipments of a customer with an employee of that customer and that U & S Shipping performed forwarding services for that customer at reduced rates.  In compromise of civil penalties arising from these allegations, U & S Shipping paid $103,000