ao link
Filter content by area of interest
Ports & Terminals
Port AuthoritiesContainerBulkBreakbulk/General CargoRo-Ro/AutomotiveGTOs
Cargo Handling Equipment
STS CranesYard CranesMobile CHERo-Ro EquipmentBreakbulk EquipmentLow ThroughputBulk Handling Equipment
Shipping & Logistics
Container ShippingBreakbulk/General CargoRo-Ro ShippingDry Bulk ShippingLiquid cargoesLogistics
TOSPlanning & Optimisation TechnologyWiFiMobile ComputingPort Community SystemsAsset Tracking & Monitoring
Automated EquipmentGate AutomationRemote ControlProcess Automation
RailInland WaterwaysShortsea ShippingRoadAir-Cargo
Container Industry
Container manufactureContainer leasingRepair/StorageTradingConversion/Innovation
Operations/TransportContainer leasingEquipmentM&R/Storage
General cargoProject Cargo/Heavy LiftForest productsRo-Ro/AutomotiveAgribulks
Safety & Security
InsuranceHazardous cargoLashings/SecuringLegal/Regulatory
Civil Engineering
Port & terminal construction/designCivil & Consulting EngineersDredging & ReclamationMooring & FenderingLightingPaving & Surfacing
InsuranceLegal/RegulatoryAppointments/PeopleMergers/Acquisitions/RestructuringFinance/Financial ResultsTrade & Professional AssociationsBusiness/Commerce Miscellaneous
 View all Topics View all Topics A-Z
More View all Topics View all Topics A-Z

Warning on notifying port fees

International Transport Intermediaries Club has warned port agents to inform their regular principals of port fee and tariff increases

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Warning on notifying port fees

ITIC advises that the information should be provided even if the details are already in the public domain. This will help avoid disputes as well as delayed reimbursement payments.


In a recent case, says ITIC, a port agent was owed US$190,000 by its regular principal (the charterer and consignee of a cargo of timber) for storage costs and demurrage charges. The agent had been invoiced for these charges by the port and had then passed them on to their principal for reimbursement.


After a lengthy period of silence from the principal, ITIC appointed lawyers to strengthen the demand for payment. The principal advised that it had relied on the port tariff previously notified by the agent. However, unknown to the principal, the port had subsequently increased its fees and this was why it was refusing to pay.


The agent responded by saying that it had sent that tariff in relation to an earlier shipment. Although it had not sent a message updating the tariff, the fees are set by the port and they are available on the port’s website. Furthermore, there was no other place the cargo could have been stored and the principal was the end user of the cargo and could not pass the storage costs on to any other party.


Despite the principal’s criticism of the agent for not keeping them advised of the changes, the agent’s inaction was not causative of any loss. Therefore, it was demanded that the ports costs should be paid in full by the principal.


After a court ordered conference, the principal offered to pay US$60,000. This was rejected and, following a mediation process, the matter was finally settled for US$160,000.


Legal fees of US$11,800 as well as the balance of the port charges were covered by ITIC. In order to avoid disputes, port agents who routinely provide regular principals with port fees and tariffs should make sure they advise them of any changes to those fees and tariffs.

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard

You may also like these related articles...

Maersk Line starts Vietnam/Belgium rail service

US furniture shipper files liner complaint with FMC

ABP's coastwise wheat sailing

People on the move - FESCO Chairman re-elected

UK logistics operator fined £6.5M over death of 11-year-old boy

Rhenus expanding in Poland

Linked In