La statunitense Federal Maritime Commission predispone ritorsioni contro i vettori marittimi cinesi

Si profila lo scoppio di una "guerra dei traffici" tra Stati Uniti e Cina, e le avvisaglie sono assai simili a quelle avvertite prima dell'analogo scontro tra USA e Giappone apertosi nel 1997 (inforMARE del 4 marzo 1997). Ieri infatti la statunitense Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) ha preso in esame i risultati della propria indagine "Shipping Restrictions, Requirements, and Practices of the People's Republic of China" (No. 98-14) avviata nell'agosto dello scorso anno. L'indagine era stata messa in atto per verificare se la politica marittima cinese ponesse delle restrizioni alla libera circolazione delle merci, o almeno quella definita tale dalle normative americane. La FMC aveva allargato l'indagine a tutti i comparti legati al trasporto marittimo tra le due nazioni: linee oceaniche, servizi d'agenzia, accessibilità ai porti, operazioni portuali e spedizione delle merci.

Dall'esame di ieri è risultato che - secondo la commissione americana - le leggi e le normative cinesi discriminano e svantaggiano i vettori statunitensi e in generale tutte le linee marittime straniere. In particolare la FMC ha rilevato che, mentre ai vettori USA è stato concessa nel 1996 la possibilità di costituire società con capitale totalmente americano nella Repubblica Popolare Cinese per acquisire carichi e svolgere altri servizi, queste società possono effettivamente operare solo in località dove le navi effettuano scali con frequenza mensile: "Così - sottolinea la commissione - se i vettori americani intendono prenotare spazi, accettare merci, emettere polizze di carico, raccogliere carichi, promuovere traffici, negoziare contratti o fornire servizi ai clienti in località interne o nei porti che loro servono solo via transhipment, devono affidarsi ad agenzie cinesi (che fanno capo alle compagnie di navigazione cinesi controllate dallo Stato). Invece i vettori cinesi non devono subire simili restrizioni alla propria attività, né in Cina né negli Stati Uniti, ed è loro permesso aprire uffici nell'entroterra e fornire servizi intermodali senza alcun impedimento".
Ma la lista degli ostacoli che si frappongono all'attività delle società americane non si fermerebbe qui. La FMC ha ricordato inoltre che per poter aprire uffici in Cina è necessario disporre un capitale sociale minimo molto elevato o è necessario aver in precedenza attivato un 'ufficio di rappresentanza' che non può svolgere servizi commerciali per almeno un anno. Altre restrizioni sarebbero state riscontrate nelle operazioni portuali e in quelle marittime in genere.

Le società statunitensi oltre alle restrizioni elencate, ha sottolineato la FMC, devono far fronte anche alla concorrenza delle compagnie cinesi, che dispongono di migliaia di dipendenti e di dozzine di filiali impegnate in attività di distribuzione della merce in ogni parte della Cina.

La Federal Maritime Commission ha inoltre espresso preoccupazione per il fatto che, a differenza di quanto avviene nella maggioranza delle nazioni marittime, i vettori devono ottenere il benestare governativo prima di avviare o variare qualsiasi servizio marittimo internazionale.

In base a queste argomentazioni, la FMC ha deciso di predisporre una proposta di intervento secondo quanto previsto dalla sezione 19 del Merchant Marine Act (1920), che dà facoltà alla commissione di avviare azioni per controbilanciare gli effetti di normative e leggi straniere che creano "condizioni non favorevoli all'attività marittima nel commercio estero". La commissione ha tra l'altro il potere di imporre limitazioni nei traffici, di intervenire sulle tariffe, di bloccare gli accordi commerciali, di applicare multe fino ad un massimo di 1.100.000 dollari per viaggio.

Considerata la differente tensione che intercorre nei rapporti politici, è improbabile che la nuova "guerra dei traffici" che la FMC sta per dichiarare alla Cina possa risolversi senza 'spargimenti di denari' come è accaduto per quella con il Giappone (inforMARE del 31 maggio). Sembrano quindi essere seriamente minacciati i traffici transpacifici, a tutto vantaggio dei collegamenti est-ovest che passano per il canale di Suez.

Bruno Bellio

Served August 12, 1998

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

DOCKET NO. 98-14

SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS, REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES
OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

INFORMATION DEMAND ORDER

BACKGROUND

In recent months, a number of sources have expressed concerns to the Federal Maritime Commission ("Commission") about laws, rules, and policies of the Government of the People's Republic of China that appear to have an adverse impact on U.S. oceanborne commerce. The Commission has initiated this proceeding to compile a record on these matters in order to determine if further Commission action under section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 or the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 is warranted.⁽¹⁾ This Information Demand Order, directed at Chinese shipping lines, inquires about particular requirements and restrictions faced by carriers in China, and the scope of Chinese carriers' business operations, both in the United States and China.

Executive Branch Agencies' Assessment

On July 22, 1998, John E. Graykowski, Acting Maritime Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, wrote to Chairman Creel on behalf of the Departments of Transportation, State, and Commerce, to provide the Commission with a description of the maritime relationship between the United States and China. The Executive Branch agencies first described in broad terms the apparent policy differences that underlie many of the particular points of contention in U.S.-Sino maritime relations:

The focal point for non-Chinese companies interested in maritime trade with China and accustomed to operating in a free market is the apparent Chinese policy of seeking to control the trade rather than allow market forces to operate. In practice, this policy has been characterized by increasing restrictions imposed unilaterally by the Chinese government on foreign carriers' operations. Efforts to expand the scope of their business operations required extended intergovernmental negotiations. . . . An important aspect of this policy is a general lack of transparency. We believe U.S. carriers in the China trade, as global intermodal transportation companies, feel acutely the effects of Chinese restrictions. In addition, the limitation, restriction or prevention of efficient shipping and intermodal services by foreign companies negatively affects users of shipping services as well.

In recent years, the Executive Branch agencies have met repeatedly with their Chinese counterparts, led by the Ministry of Communications ("MOC"), "to persuade them to remove the restrictions that U.S. carriers face in the China trade and, in so doing, to achieve operating conditions for them in China that are equivalent to the open, market-oriented treatment enjoyed by Chinese carriers in the United States." The Acting Maritime Administrator attached a copy of the Agreed Minutes of the most recent negotiating rounds, in Beijing, June 25-28, 1997, and in Washington, December 3-11, 1997. The talks covered ten main areas:

access by U.S. carriers to Chinese ports on 24-hour approval;
Shanghai Shipping Exchange;
Chinese multimodal regulation;
shipping between Hong Kong, China, and mainland China;
shipping across the Taiwan Strait;
limitations on carriers' branch offices in China;
exclusion of foreign carriers from vessel agency operations in China;
the Port of Tianjin/Sea-Land joint venture to operate a marine terminal;
the Controlled Carrier Act (section 9 of the Shipping Act of 1984); and
COSCO's efforts to lease a marine terminal at a former U.S. Navy facility in Long Beach, California.

The Executive Branch agencies also reported on an unwritten agreement the U.S. and Chinese delegation came to in December. This unmemorialized agreement reportedly had three parts:

The Maritime Administration and the U.S. carriers would support in writing a China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, Inc. ("COSCO") request to the Commission for permission to match competitors' rates on 24 hours' notice (as opposed to the statutory 30-day period);
The MOC would approve American President Lines, Ltd. ("APL") and Sea-Land Service, Inc. ("Sea-Land") pending port access requests and would act expeditiously (i.e., within 10 days) on their future requests; and
The MOC would approve Sea-Land's joint venture with the Port of Tianjin.

After the Commission granted the relief sought by COSCO,⁽²⁾ the Executive Branch agencies reported, a further round of bilateral negotiations was held from March 30 to April 3, 1998. During these talks, the Chinese side reportedly insisted that it was unable to act on its unwritten commitments without further study. To date, the Executive Branch agencies stated, MOC has not yet given the necessary approval for the Sea-Land terminal venture in Tianjin venture. The agencies said that some U.S. carrier applications now have been approved and that some have not yet been acted upon. Further, the agencies directed the Commission's attention to paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Agreed Minutes, which deal with shipping between Hong Kong and mainland China and across the Taiwan Strait.

The Executive Branch agencies noted new Chinese regulations prescribing penalties for operators of unapproved liner services, including fines and confiscation of revenues and business licenses. They also observed that "access by foreign vessels to ostensibly open ports in China is now solely at the discretion of MOC," and "a variety of normal commercial activities, including, for example, rate-setting and use of intermodal through bills of lading, are subject to monitoring, approval or denial by MOC."

The Executive Branch agencies reported that both countries have extended the bilateral Maritime agreement for three months, until September 15, 1998. The Department of State recently informed the Commission that, in a response to a Chinese proposal for negotiations on a new bilateral agreement, it requested talks for the last week in August covering the unresolved issues from the unwritten December "Gentlemen's Agreement."

Other Recent Communications Regarding China Maritime Policy

Commission Chairman Creel received a letter, dated June 16, 1998, from Senator Ernest F. Hollings, expressing his concern for the deterioration of the U.S.-China maritime relationship and the limitations imposed by MOC on U.S. carriers in the Chinese trade. Specifically, the Senator observed that U.S. carriers are subject to a cumbersome approval process for routine vessel and itinerary changes, restrictions on number and locations of their branch offices in China, limits on their intermodal services to inland customers in China, and a complete prohibition on their operation of vessel agency services. Senator Hollings reminded the Chairman that COSCO, now one of the largest and most successful carriers in the U.S. trades, does not face these same restrictions in the United States.

The Senator further recounted the making of the "Gentlemen's Agreement" between U.S. and Chinese negotiators in December, 1997, and the U.S. side's actions to honor that agreement, in particular, supporting COSCO's petition for limited exemption from the Controlled Carrier Act, which the Commission granted in March. The Chinese, he noted, had still failed to act on their agreement to approve vessel registration applications and U.S. carrier port access, and to approve a U.S. carrier's port operating joint venture. Finally, Senator Hollings urged the Commission to investigate these matters and act to encourage China to remove restrictions on U.S. carriers so they may compete freely and openly in China.

Commission Chairman Creel also received a letter, dated June 24, 1998, from Owen G. Glenn, Chairman of Direct Container Line, a U.S.-based NVOCC, raising the issue of Chinese restrictions on foreign NVOCCs. Mr. Glenn took note of the Commission's efforts in support of Direct's successful attempts to enter the Korean market,⁽³⁾ and the Commission's support for Executive Branch agencies' efforts to open the Brazilian market to U.S. NVOCCs, and asked what action the Commission might consider taking with regard to current Chinese restrictions.

The Commission has been approached on a number of occasions by representatives of APL and Sea-Land, who have complained informally about the matters raised by the Executive Branch agencies, and underscored their desire for improvements.

COSCO's Recent Statements

COSCO issued a statement addressing recent criticism of Chinese shipping policies by U.S. officials. COSCO stated, in part:⁽⁴⁾

Recent comments made would lead public opinion to believe that Chinese flag carriers receive complete freedom to operate without any restrictions in the U.S. while U.S. carriers are severely restricted in China. These statements are inaccurate, as Chinese flag carriers operate under controlled carrier restrictions in the United States. Although U.S. flag carriers may be facing some restrictions in China, these restrictions are universally applied and do not single out certain carriers. Pursuant to the memorandum of U.S.-Sino Maritime discussions signed in June of 1996, U.S. flag carriers were granted important trade concessions not available to other countries. Additional concessions were granted to the U.S. carriers recently including permission to establish 6 additional shipping routes in China.

Earlier this year, Chinese carriers were granted a limited exemption from the controlled carrier restrictions by allowing them to meet a filed rate of a competing ocean shipping line on one day's notice. While we saw this as a good first step, most of the progress that was made with this exemption would be negated if the current deregulation bill S-414 is passed. COSCO will lose its flexibility in tariff pricing if the current deregulation bill is passed. We will be deprived our current right to file rates in China/Hong Kong-US bilateral trade on one day's notice, thus making COSCO's competitiveness reduced dramatically. The intent of the talks between the two nations were to reduce restrictions on both sides, granting Chinese shipping lines matching ability on the cross trades while introducing new regulations on the bilateral trades contradicts the intent of the discussions.

DISCUSSION

The Commission, in order to determine whether any of a number of Chinese laws, rules, regulations, policies or practices merit further Commission action under section 19 or the Foreign Shipping Practices Act, is collecting information on the following specific areas at this time.

1. Port Access and Licensing of Liner Services

There appears to be an inconsistency in the Chinese approach to port access. While the bilateral agreement authorizes vessel calls on 24 hours' notice for national flag vessels, it appears that MOC requires foreign carriers to obtain licenses or pre-approvals to offer liner services at Chinese ports. It appears that this licensing procedure can take up to 90 days or more. Details of the approval process are not apparent. It is unclear how requests are reviewed, and whether permissions are granted by service string, by port, by company or consortium, or by vessel. Moreover, it is not clear what the criteria are by which requests can be withheld or denied, and what, if any, appeal rights carriers enjoy. The Commission is seeking further information on this system from ocean common carriers. The Commission also seeks to determine whether rules regarding vessels in the transpacific trade that call in both Taiwan and China are being administered transparently and even-handedly. The Commission is also collecting information on the extent of Chinese carriers' vessel operations in the United States, to aid in analyzing reciprocity of any conditions.

2. Carrier Branch Offices and Multimodal Transport Operations

U.S. carriers appear to face a number of restrictions in operating branch offices in China. As the Executive Branch agencies pointed out, Chinese authorities have denied carrier requests to increase the number of branch offices in China. The addition of branch offices for foreign carriers apparently has required direct government-to-government appeals and negotiations; such impediments certainly do not exist for Chinese lines in that country. For the branch offices that do exist, it appears that there may be serious restrictions on their operations, both in terms of the geographic area they may serve and the scope of services they may offer. Chinese carriers face no such restrictions in the United States.

We are particularly concerned about restrictions that may limit carriers' ability to offer multimodal transportation services. The ability to arrange for or provide inland transport, offer logistics services, issue documentation, manage information and equipment, and market services to potential customers is critical to any shipping line's viability. It is also our understanding that new regulations have been proposed or promulgated regulating such services, and carriers wishing to offer them may be required to seek central government permission. The Commission requires more information on the restrictions on carriers' branch office or multimodal operations in China, and on the extent of Chinese carriers' branch office and subsidiary operations in this country.

Chinese authorities have deflected criticism of its "doing business" restrictions in a number of ways. The Chinese delegation to the December 1997 talks stated that, because China is a developing country, the market can not be opened all at once, but rather must be opened incrementally. They noted that U.S. carriers have more branch offices in China than any other non-Chinese nationality. The Chinese delegation advocated the most-favored-nation approach, in which the subject country affords and imposes on all foreign business concerns operating therein the same rights and restrictions.

It would appear, however, that the most-favored-nation approach advocated by Chinese authorities bestows on Chinese shipping lines an extraordinary commercial advantage; they (unlike their competitors) can reap the benefits of the important and expanding Chinese market with a more extensive and unrestricted network of branch offices and multimodal operations, while taking advantage of the relative lack of restrictions on offices, marketing, and inland transport in the United States.⁽⁵⁾ This unequal treatment likely has played a role in COSCO's rapid growth to be one of the world's largest shipping lines.⁽⁶⁾ Regardless of whether China is, broadly speaking, a developing country, its maritime sector is rapidly assuming a leading position in the world market, making protectionist measures that disadvantage U.S. competitors appear increasingly untenable.

3. Vessel Agency Services

Regarding vessel agency services, it appears that China requires U.S. carriers to deal with PENAVICO (a subsidiary of COSCO) or China Marine Service (a subsidiary of China National Foreign Trade Transportation (Group) Corporation ("Sinotrans")). The fact that "[f]oreign shipping companies may select freely any shipping agencies for services, provided that these agencies are entitled to perform their services for foreign vessels," as the Chinese delegation remarked, appears to be of little consequence if only Chinese government-owned vessel agency services have such approval. Similarly, our concerns are not allayed by the Chinese assertions in bilateral maritime discussions that Chinese vessel agency companies are "entirely independent from their parent companies," as Chinese carriers face no similar restrictions in the United States.

It would be beneficial to determine exactly what the legal bases are for the U.S. carriers' exclusion from this market in China, what specific services are at issue, and whether Chinese carriers perform such services for themselves in this country.

4. NVOCC and Freight Forwarder Operations

As noted by Direct Container Line, U.S. NVOCCs and ocean freight forwarders appear to face serious restrictions in obtaining licenses to do business in China. Chinese transportation intermediaries, on the other hand, face no nationality-based restrictions doing business in this country. By this order and by a separate notice of inquiry to be published in the Federal Register, the Commission is collecting information on (among other things) the types of restrictions imposed on non-Chinese intermediaries, and the effect of those restrictions on those companies, their customers, and U.S. oceanborne trade.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that each of the persons listed in the attached Appendix shall submit to the Commission responses to the following requests for information and documents, on or before

October 2, 1998:⁽⁷⁾

Changes in port calls/access to ports

1. Under Chinese laws, rules, or regulations, what restrictions or requirements are imposed on your company's⁽⁸⁾ ability to add or change port calls, service strings or vessel itineraries when serving ports in the People's Republic of China? Describe in full any documentation, notification, and other procedures which may be required when you wish to make such changes, and describe whether governmental approvals are granted on a per port call, per vessel, service string, or some other basis. Describe the criteria the Chinese authorities use when determining whether or not to grant permission for such change. Identify and provide a translated version of all written administrative guidelines, laws, rules or regulations, including the Chinese cross-strait trade regulations, establishing or describing the procedures and substantive standards for the above-described restrictions, requirements, and approvals.⁽⁹⁾

2. List and describe any applications you have brought within the past 6 months seeking approval from Chinese authorities for new or changed vessel calls or liner services in international liner trade. Describe the request and any response or decision (either written or oral) provided by Chinese authorities (and note where there has been no response), and provide copies of any written response or decision given by Chinese authorities.

3. Provide a list of all liner services currently operated by your company in the U.S. trades. Identify each service string, the trade in which it operates, the numbers of vessels involved, the ports of call (U.S. and foreign) and the identity of any participating consortium partner.

Branch offices and multimodal operations

4. Identify all branch offices, including those of corporate affiliates or subsidiaries, in China that provide any of the following services: liner shipping services, container vessel operations, freight forwarding, logistics services, consolidation, warehousing, agency services (vessel, cargo, managing agency, etc.), or inland (rail or truck) haulage. Identify the offices' geographic locations, staffing levels, and types of activities in which they are involved.

5. Describe any limitations, restrictions, or requirements your company faces (including limits on the number of offices, geographic locations or areas served, types of activities permitted, staffing, and capitalization) when establishing new branch offices to provide any of the following services in China: arranging, marketing, or providing international liner shipping services; vessel operations; freight forwarding; logistics services; consolidation; warehousing; agency services (vessel, cargo, managing agency, etc.); or inland (rail or truck) haulage. Provide any relevant laws, regulations, statements of policy, or other communications from the Government of China regarding these restrictions or requirements. If any such rules, policies or guidance were provided orally by Chinese officials, describe such communications, when they were given, and by whom.

6. To the extent not addressed above, describe any limits imposed upon your company's ability to provide intermodal transportation services in China (e.g., arranging or providing inland transportation, preparing documentation and issuing bills of lading, providing logistics services, managing and providing equipment, etc.). Provide any relevant laws, regulations, statements of policy, or other communications from the Government of China, regarding these restrictions or requirements. If any such rules, policies or guidance were provided orally by Chinese officials, describe such communications, and when and by whom they were given.

7. Describe to the best of your knowledge the status of proposed regulations covering multimodal transportation in China, which reportedly were scheduled to become effective on July 1, 1998. Provide the final or latest available draft of those regulations.

8. Identify all branch offices, including those of corporate affiliates or subsidiaries, that your company operates in the United States. Describe the business activities carried on at each office (for example, arranging, marketing, or providing liner shipping services; vessel operations; freight forwarding; NVOCC operations; logistics services; consolidation; warehousing; agency services; rail or trucking services; inland haulage; terminal operations; customs brokerage; or other activities). Identify each office's geographic location, functions and staffing levels.

Vessel Agents

9. Describe your company's arrangements for vessel agents in each port in which you operate in China. Describe in detail the services that are provided, and by whom.

10. Identify what types of vessel agency services are reserved for Chinese companies, and, to the best of your knowledge, the legal basis for these restrictions. Provide copies of any Chinese laws, regulations, or policy statements establishing or explaining these restrictions.

11. Describe your company's arrangements for vessel agents in each port in which you operate in the United States. Describe in detail the services that are provided, and by whom.

Ocean Freight Forwarding and NVOCC Operations

12. To the extent not described above, describe what conditions, requirements or restrictions are placed on non-Chinese corporations (other than vessel operating shipping lines) offering or seeking to offer ocean transportation intermediary services, such as arranging inland or ocean transportation, preparing documentation and issuing bills of lading, consolidation, warehousing, cargo agency, or logistics services in China. What types of licenses are required, and what restrictions are placed on their issuance? Who issues the necessary licenses and permissions, and what are the legal standards and procedures for granting them?

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That each of the questions listed above calling for the submission of information (as opposed to documents) must be answered separately and fully, in writing and under oath, and signed by the corporate official providing the answer;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That every document provided pursuant to this Order must clearly identify the question in response to which it is supplied;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That documents provided pursuant to this Order must be accompanied by a certification, under oath, by a corporate official indicating that a thorough search has been made, and that the documents provided are the only documents responsive to this Order within his or her possession, custody, or control.

By the Commission.

Joseph C. Polking
Secretary

APPENDIX

China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co. ("COSCO")
100 Lighting Way
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Tel. (201) 422-8886
Fax (201) 422-8887

China National Foreign Trade Transportation (Group) Corp. ("Sinotrans")
General Agent for Sinotrans, Norton Lilly International, Inc.
200 Plaza Drive
Harmon Meadow
Secaucus, NJ 07096
Tel. (201) 392-3000

ENDNOTES

1. Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, 46 U.S.C. app. ' 876, authorizes the Commission, inter alia, to "make rules and regulations affecting shipping in the foreign trade not in conflict with law in order to adjust or meet general or special conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade . . . which arise out of or result from foreign laws, rules, or regulations or from competitive methods or practices employed by owners, operators, agents, or masters of vessels of a foreign country;. . . ." The Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, 46 U.S.C. app. ' 1710a, authorizes the Commission to investigate whether any laws, rules, regulations, policies, or practices of foreign governments, or any practices of foreign carriers or other persons providing maritime or maritime related services in a foreign country result in the existence of conditions that (1) adversely affect the operations of United States carriers in the United States oceanborne trade; and (2) do not exist for foreign carriers of that country in the United States under the laws of the United States or as a result of acts of United States carriers or other persons providing maritime or maritime-related services in the United States. If the Commission determines that such adverse conditions exist, it may take actions including limitations on sailings, suspension of tariffs, suspension of agreements, or fees not to exceed $1,000,000 per voyage.

2. By Final Order dated March 27, 1998, in Petition No. P1-98, the Commission granted COSCO an exemption from the statutory waiting period for rate changes for a controlled carrier under the Controlled Carrier Act. COSCO's petition was supported in writing by U.S. carriers Sea-Land and APL, MARAD, and a number of shippers. The Commission granted COSCO's request for an exemption from the 30-day delay in tariff effectiveness on the basis that such an exemption met the four criteria in section 16 of the 1984 Act. Despite COSCO's representations in that proceeding that the expedited filing was important to their ability to compete, it has not once used the authority granted it in the exemption.

3. See Docket No. 92-42, Actions to Adjust or Meet Conditions Unfavorable to Shipping in the United States/Korea Trade, 26 S.R.R. 591. In response to a Petition (No. P2-92) filed by Direct Container Line, the Commission issued a Final Rule on November 13, 1992, under section 19(1)(b) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920. The Commission found that the Korean Maritime Transportation Business Act created conditions which, inter alia, precluded or tended to preclude non-Korean NVOCCs and freight forwarders from competing in the U.S./Korean trade, and denied NVOCCs and freight forwarders owned and operated by non-Korean nationals equal access to cargo moving from Korea to the United States.

4. "COSCO's Response and Clarifications to Allegations Made by the Honorable Senators: E. Hollings, C. Thomas, J. Helms, G. Smith and J. Breaux," www.cosco-usa.com/ie4/news/sale.htm.

5. Indeed, it is no defense under section 19 and the Foreign Shipping Practices Act to suggest that U.S. companies are treated no worse than other foreign firms. Under section 19, the Commission is directed to address conditions unfavorable to shipping in the foreign trade; that all non-Chinese carriers in the trade are subject to the same unfavorable conditions would appear to augment, not lessen, the effect of those conditions. Under the FSPA, the Commission is specifically directed to compare the treatment of U.S. carriers in a foreign country to the treatment of that country's carriers in the U.S., not to the treatment of other foreign lines abroad.

6. According to Containerisation International, COSCO Container Line is currently the world's fifth largest container shipping line, with assets of $2.8 billion and a fleet of 145 containerships (215,000 TEU).

7. Section 19(6) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, states:

(a) the Commission may, by order, require any person . . . to file with the Commission a report, answers to questions, documentary material, or other information which the Commission consider necessary or appropriate;

(b) the Commission may require a report or answers to questions be made under oath;

* * *

(d) a person who fails to file . . . information required to be filed under this paragraph shall be liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5000 for each day that the information is not provided.

The Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988, 46 U.S.C. app. ' 1710a, authorizes the Commission to require any person "to file with the Commission any periodic or special report, answers to questions, documentary material, or other information which the Commission considers necessary or appropriate" to further the purposes of that statute.

8. References to "you" or "your company" include parent companies, subsidiaries, and corporate affiliates with whom common ownership is shared.

9. Any document in a language other than English shall be accompanied by an English translation. For the purposes of this Order, the term "document(s)" refers to written, printed, typed, or visually or aurally reproduced material of any kind, including (but not limited to) all copies of any and all letters, correspondence, recommendations, contracts, agreements, orders, records, minutes, reports, press releases, plans, manuals, lists, memos, instructions, notes, notices, confirmations, inter-office or electronic mail, faxes, cables, notations, summaries, opinions, studies, surveys, or memoranda of any conversations, telephone calls, meetings, or other communications.