Wan Hai and Cosco step up box ship 'arms race' with more newbuild orders
Taiwan’s Wan Hai Lines has returned to South Korea for more newbuilding containerships, as it ...
VW: MILESTONE LINE: UNLIKEDXOM: DRILL BABY DRILLMAERSK: GREEN PUSHGM: BIG HITAMZN: STRIKEZIM: EXIT STAGE LEFTDSV: ZERO US TARIFFS IMPACT XPO: LOOKING GOODAMZN: PARTNERSHIP EXTENDEDWMT: ON A ROLLDSV: SLOW START AAPL: LEGAL
VW: MILESTONE LINE: UNLIKEDXOM: DRILL BABY DRILLMAERSK: GREEN PUSHGM: BIG HITAMZN: STRIKEZIM: EXIT STAGE LEFTDSV: ZERO US TARIFFS IMPACT XPO: LOOKING GOODAMZN: PARTNERSHIP EXTENDEDWMT: ON A ROLLDSV: SLOW START AAPL: LEGAL
Israeli carrier Zim faces being hauled up in front of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) after allegations that it breached the US Shipping Act.
Yesterday, non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) Baylink claimed that in June 2021, an operator called Koyote Trucking collected a Baylink container from Zim without authorisation or a delivery order.
According to the complaint, Baylink only found out about this some two months later and “subsequently learned that the container had not been timely returned to Zim”.
The container was not returned until April 2023, racking up 628 days of detention charges. Zim then said that having failed to retrieve the fees from Koyote, it would be seeking payment of just under $137,000 from Baylink.
Baylink says it “requested that Zim provide it with the identity of the trucker that retrieved the container, and provide Baylink with the container pick-up documents which would identify the trucker”,
Despite requests, claims Baylink, Zim “failed and refused” to provide either the identity of the trucker or the documents.
Reiterating that “at no time did Baylink have a business relationship with Koyote Trucking”, the claim is that “Zim wrongly and improperly delivered the container to Koyote”.
The complaint adds: “Baylink had no financial incentive to facilitate the return of the container, as Zim had failed to inform Baylink that Zim would hold Baylink responsible for any detention of the container and, in fact, Zim communicated that it would hold [cargo owner] Riomar responsible for any detention.”
Baylink claims it was Zim’s “actions and omissions” that precluded Baylink from facilitating the timely return of the container”.
Comment on this article