News / PAC files complaint against port operator over 'unjust' charges

Ports America Chesapeake (PAC) has accused port operator Amports of “brazen violations” of the US Shipping Act, including the imposition of more than $1m in “unjust charges”.

Filing the complaint on Friday with Marine Terminals Corp East, to the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), PAC said it related to Amports’ behaviour at its Chesapeake terminal in Baltimore, Maryland.

The complaint claims: “Amports has engaged in a series of schemes and efforts to unlawfully restrict stevedoring services provided by PAC for vessels and cargo in Port of Baltimore.”

There are four accusations: “punitive” access fees “on allegedly ‘non-preferred’ stevedores” amounting to $1.2m; “prejudicial treatment” with no justification; inference with PAC’s business and contracts; and “unreasonably” refusing to deal with PAC.

All four date to a 1 November announcement by the terminal operator to its customers that it had selected a “sole stevedoring partner” for its Chesapeake facility.

PAC was not sent the letter, but received a copy shortly after it was issued and noted in its claim that, as of 1 January 2023, the selected stevedore, while agreeing to “honour existing agreements until expiration”, would have “exclusive rights” to the terminal’s ro-ro operations.

The letter further alerted carriers wishing to retain the services of existing stevedores that they would be required to pay $25 per unit fee to enter Amports’ facility.

Responding to the announcement, PAC wrote to Amports on 6 December, saying it “expressly put Amports on notice that [its] actions and proposed actions violated federal and state laws and regulations”.

It claims: “Virtually every aspect of Amports’ actions violates (or if implemented would violate) the Shipping Act under multiple, well- established Shipping Act principles.

“There is no legitimate basis for claiming that the purported ‘licensing’, and a $25 fee for purportedly unlicenced stevedores, is necessary at the Atlantic/Chesapeake sites to ‘shorten drive times, design staging areas for cargo, and expedite vessel operations’.

“Nor does [Amports] explain how assessing punitive access fees, interfering with existing contracts and reducing competitive stevedoring choices is necessary to achieve such results.”

With stevedoring contracts between stevedores and carriers, rather than through terminal operators, the complaint said carriers were being put in a position requiring them to breach existing agreements or accept a hike in their operation’s costs.

Amports justified the fee claiming a reduction in stevedore numbers would reduce berthing delays, improve terminal efficiency and make it easier to identify those responsible for terminal and cargo damage.

Responding to PAC’s suggestion that carriers were being penalised, Amports said the fee would be collected from unlicensed stevedores and not charged to carrier customers.

Amports’ counsel advised PAC that it had “accrued approximately $1.2m in fees since 1 January 2023” and, after responding with a rejection of the fee, PAC has received no response from Amports to date.