With an order of last February 13 signed by the judge administrative Erin M. Wirth, the U.S. government agency Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has granted the request for compensation for damages presented by the American dealer of materials and furnishing products MCS Industries towards the Chinese shipping company COSCO Shipping Lines and that Swiss Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) for violation of the Shipping Act 1984. If in 2021 the Chinese carrier had left scene with FMC approval of an agreement settlement between the two parties, so it was not for the MSC to which, with the order, the recasting was imposed of damages totaling $944.7 million plus interests.

In its complaint lodged at the end of July 2021, the MCS Industries had accused MSC and COSCO of failing to supply the company has cargo space for its exports to Asia despite - he had emphasized - this was established by contractual obligations, offering instead to MCS - according to what Recriminated by the company - only a fraction of the load slots needed at a significantly higher price than what agreed, spaces and freight that MCS - had specified the company American - had accepted believing that the price difference would have been reimbursed in full in consideration of the dysfunctions that then characterized transport operations containerized seafarer.

A few days later MSC expressed its amazement at the complaint lodged by MCS alleging that it had not received any formal complaint by the company prior to submission of its complaint to the FMC and had rejected all charges with respect to the complaints made by MCS Industries, including also that of alleged collusion between MSC and COSCO which - had Remembered the Swiss shipping company - they are not part of the same alliance and have no operational cooperation in no part of the world defined as part of Vessel Sharing Agreement or Slot Charter Agreement.

Last September, therefore, responding to the request of documentation by the American judge and specifying To believe that there was no basis for making a judgment in In absentia, MSC had replied that Swiss law prevents MSC to produce certain documents without specific authorization by the Swiss authorities. Highlighting the will to cooperate fully with the Federal Maritime Commission, MSC had proposed the adoption of a resolution procedure for the litigation that would allow both the legislation to be fully respected American and Swiss.

The ordinance signed by Wirth, however, was pronounced in absentia and today, with respect to this decision, MSC has expressed disappointment and made it clear that this is not a decision in the merit - and in this regard MSC has reiterated that it considers the unfounded claims of MCS - and that is not definitive. The Swiss shipping company has announced that will promptly appeal as soon as the procedures of the FMC will allow it. According to MSC, then, the decision would be based on a procedural challenge allegedly misunderstanding the issues relating to Swiss law which - argues MSC - would prevent the Swiss shipping company from complying with the discovery order with which the FMC asked the Swiss company to produce certain documents deemed relevant to the decision.

In today's comment on the order, MSC also highlighted, that the Swiss authorities at the highest level would have confirmed that MSC must follow established procedures pursuant to of the applicable international conventions of which both the USA and Switzerland are part. In this regard, MSC has made explicit reference to provisions of the same Shipping Act governing how the FMC must proceed in order to obtain information or documents from a foreign company that cannot be products due to the laws of that country. Provisions that MSC has underlined represent the basis for the procedure that the carrier Swiss seafarer had proposed to allow discussion in the merit of the case.

With regard to MCS Industries' complaints, the Geneva shipping company has announced that it has investigated on the question and that it concluded that the difficulties met by the American company with its reservations for the maritime shipment of goods "derive - MSC claimed - from errors and communication problems between MCS Industries and intermediaries of third parties, and not from any wrongdoing of MSC'. According to the Swiss company, "MCS Industries is trying to charge MSC for non-carriage of goods that MCS has never asked it to transport, and - has Concluded the company - the decision to grant it compensation For damages that he has never proven he is wrong."