![S3.E17 - FMC's Final Rule on D&D Billing Requirements - Part 4 - Do you know where the invoices are going now? [and discussions on VOCC Audit Program, Foreign Shipping Practices Act, and Civil Penalties go to US General Fund] Artwork](https://www.buzzsprout.com/rails/active_storage/representations/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBCSUx4WUFjPSIsImV4cCI6bnVsbCwicHVyIjoiYmxvYl9pZCJ9fQ==--426bb3f715b5a339270216fdeb28399999d1e3dc/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaDdDVG9MWm05eWJXRjBPZ2hxY0djNkUzSmxjMmw2WlY5MGIxOW1hV3hzV3docEFsZ0NhUUpZQW5zR09nbGpjbTl3T2d0alpXNTBjbVU2Q25OaGRtVnlld1k2REhGMVlXeHBkSGxwUVRvUVkyOXNiM1Z5YzNCaFkyVkpJZ2x6Y21kaUJqb0dSVlE9IiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJ2YXJpYXRpb24ifX0=--1924d851274c06c8fa0acdfeffb43489fc4a7fcc/canva-design.jpeg)
By Land and By Sea
By Land and By Sea
S3.E17 - FMC's Final Rule on D&D Billing Requirements - Part 4 - Do you know where the invoices are going now? [and discussions on VOCC Audit Program, Foreign Shipping Practices Act, and Civil Penalties go to US General Fund]
Topic of the Week (5/31/24):
The FMC's Final Rule on Detention and Demurrage Billing Practices became effective this week on Tuesday - and as part of our continuing discussion I have one question for you this week - do you know where your D&D invoice is being sent now?
Final Rule - 46 CFR Part 541:
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-46/chapter-IV/subchapter-B/part-541
The Maritime Professorᵀᴹ presents By Land and By Sea - an attorney breaking down the week in supply chain
with Lauren Beagen (Founder of The Maritime Professorᵀᴹ and Squall Strategiesᵀᴹ)
Let's dive in...
1 - Federal Maritime Commission Commission Meeting, May 29, 2024
[includes a discussion on VOCC Audit Program Overview]
Commission Meeting Announcement/Agenda:
https://www.fmc.gov/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-may-29-2024/
VOCC Audit Program:
https://www.fmc.gov/detention-and-demurrage/vessel-operating-common-carrier-vocc-audit-program/
2 - FMC launched an investigation into the impact of Canadian Ballast Water Regulations on US Flag Carriers (a continuation of a review prompted in part by the Lake Carriers Association petition (P1-20) in March 2020)
[includes a discussion of Foreign Shipping Practices Act and Sec. 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920]
FMC Announcement:
https://www.fmc.gov/fmc-launches-investigation-of-the-impact-of-canadian-ballast-water-regulations-on-u-s-flag-carriers/
3 - FMC announces three compromise agreements with CMA CGM, Vanguard Logistics Services, and Shipco Transport
[includes a discussion of civil penalties go to General Fund of US, NOT the FMC directly]
-------------------------------
The Maritime Professorᵀᴹ is an e-learning/educational based company on all things maritime and supply chain - we provide employee trainings, e-content/e-courses, general trainings/webinars, and executive recruiting. Make sure to sign up for the email list so that you will be alerted to when the e-learning content is available, but also, being on the email list will give you exclusive access to promo/discount codes!
Sign up for our email list at https://lnkd.in/eqfZJShQ
Look for our podcast episodes - NOW AVAILABLE:
https://lnkd.in/g4YUbxjs
** As always the guidance here is general and for educational purposes only, it should not be construed to be legal advice and there is no attorney-client privilege created by this video or podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. **
#ByLandAndBySea
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Oh, I got soul coming through. Won't stop in the piece and on top of the world, yeah, walk to the beat when you see me coming. Make some room. Oh, everywhere I go, I'm in the spotlight. This is a good life. Oh, I'm living bold. This is what it looks like. I'm a city of the world. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Speaker 1:Did you feel that that shift in the industry Just kidding, but really a pivotal rule became effective this week? We've been talking about it a lot. It effectively took us from the wild, wild west to the beginnings of some mandated order in detention and demerge invoicing. But the big question now is do you know where your D&D invoices are? Hi, welcome to, by Land and by Sea, an attorney breaking down the weekend supply chain Presented by the Maritime Professor me. I'm Lauren Began, the founder of the Maritime Professor and Squall Strategies, and I'm your favorite maritime attorney. Join me every week as we walk through both ocean transport and surface transport topics in the wild world of supply chain. As always, the guidance here is general and for educational purposes only. It should not be construed with legal advice and there is no attorney-client privilege created by this video or this podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. But before we get into the discussion of the day, let's go through my top three stories of the week.
Speaker 1:All right, story number one this week the FMC, the Federal Maritime Commission, held their commission meeting. In that meeting they discussed. This was on their agenda. They had two items that were open to the public and they had one continuation of an item that was then closed to the public, for usually it's for kind of the discussion of some of those non-public elements of business-related things. So the two things that were on the open session was a staff update for BCL Bureau of Certification and Licensing Programs and that was talking about the OTI Ocean Transportation Intermediary and the Passenger Vessel Operator Program, both really interesting topics that they covered and I really encourage you to go check out the hearing they're always recorded. The other item that was up on both the public, and the closed to the public was the staff update on the Vessel Operating Common Carrier Audit Program, the VOCC. So, as you can imagine, this had an open part, but was also necessary in a Vessel Operating Common Carrier VOCC audit program to have a section that was inevitably going to be closed to the public. Like I said, these meetings are streamed on YouTube. They're also available as a recording after the fact. But one thing that I wanted to mention and highlight was there was some discussion in the hearing of renaming the VOCC audit program to now potentially be called the VOCC compliance program, to kind of more accurately reflect what it is, and so I actually thought this might be a good time for a little refresher on what this program is. Right from the FMC's website, I'm going to be linking to the page in the show notes but the VOCC audit program. So the Vessel Operating Common Car show notes, but the VOCC audit program. So the Vessel Operating Common Carrier Audit Program.
Speaker 1:Vocc audit program was established in July 2021. The initial scope of the program I'm reading off of the website here. So this is what the FMC is presenting this VOCC program to be. So the initial scope of the program was intended to analyze the top nine carriers by market share for compliance with the commission rule interpreting 46 USC 41102C as it applies to detention and demerge practices in the United States. So this was established in July 2021, right. So July 2021, we're still kind of in that COVID congestion wild world, right? So that's where this started and it was part of that D&D practices that they were starting to try to get a handle on. Wrangle the D&D practices a bit. The FMC that is.
Speaker 1:Continuing on. It says other areas of the audit include practices relating to billing, appeals procedures, penalties and other practices. So it says the audit program includes collection of qualitative and quantitative data related to carrier detention and demurrage, as well as regular meetings with representatives from the carriers. The initial information collected on carrier approaches to conveying information on their D&D policies with the shipping public led to FMC identifying best practices in this area and it doesn't say it here but I'm sure that that informs some of their rulemaking approaches as they were working on their D&D rulemaking. Like I said, it doesn't say this here but I can imagine, right, if they're identifying best practices that they're highlighting here. Continuing on, it says these best practices were shared with a broader set of carriers and outreach has resulted in many carriers adopting these best practices. Best practices are separated into the areas of one, accessibility of dnd information, two, dnd dispute resolution policies and practices, and three, invoices and notification of cargo availability. So that's what the vocc program is, if you want to hear some of the updates. It was a pretty interesting overall hearing. It was about just over an hour, I believe it was. But yeah, like I said, you can go onto YouTube and find the recording there.
Speaker 1:So story number two. This next story didn't get a ton of coverage but it really potentially could have some significant effects in the Great Lakes on Canadian flagged Laker fleet vessels, and I mean potentially on the north, northern, east and west coast of the United States as well, Anywhere that there's kind of that US-Canadian interchange. There could be some big ramifications here, something to pay attention to and, like I said, it didn't get a ton of coverage. So on May 21st the FMC announced that it had launched an investigation to determine if pending Canadian regulations governing ballast water management systems of ships in the US-Canadian Great Lakes trade have a disparate effect on US-flagged vessels and constitute a foreign shipping practices violation under 46 USC Chapter 423. This is off the FMC press release. It continues to say US-based companies operating ships in the US-Canada Great Lakes trade maintain that Canadian regulations, taking effect as to some vessels in September 2024, impose a severe burden on the operations and put American companies and vessels at a disadvantage relative to their Canadian competitors.
Speaker 1:The commission is authorized this is continuing on from the press release authorized by Title 46, chapter 423 of the US Code to investigate whether the laws, rules, regulations, policies or practices of another nation result in conditions that adversely affect the operations of United States carriers and the United States ocean-borne trade. So the Commission has determined that sufficient facts exist related to the Canadian battle swatter regulations to warrant initiating a foreign shipping practices investigation. The investigation will be led by the Commission's General Counsel, who will prepare and present a report to the Commission containing his findings and recommendations for Commission action within 120 days, unless an extension is approved. And it continues to say, interested members of the public are invited to comment on the matters that have triggered this investigation. Comments should be submitted via the federal e-rulemaking portal by June 21st 2024. So this is kind of a novel thing.
Speaker 1:Like I said, there are some potential large ramifications from this. Actually, I'm just going to continue reading off of the press release here because it starts to talk about that a little bit. There are significant potential consequences for Canadian flag vessels calling at US ports if the commission determines that there has been a violation of the foreign shipping practices provisions. Options for offsetting sanctions include limiting Canadian flag vessels from calling at US ports and assessing significant fees on Canadian flag vessels. We're going to talk about that in a minute here. The commission's announcement said.
Speaker 1:Today's announcement continues on an ongoing examination by the Commission of Canadian Government Policies and Regulations Impacting US Flagged Great Lakes Operators. A petition filed by the Lake Carriers Association, lca, lake Carriers Association Petition P1-20, a trade association representing US flagged operators in the Great Lakes, originally directed the commission's attention to this matter in March 2020. Subsequently, the commission initiated an investigation of regulations affecting shipping and foreign trade using its authority under 46 USC chapter 421. So one of those penalties that's authorized to be assessed under this Foreign Shipping Practices Act they say significant penalties it can be up to a million dollars per voyage that the FMC can assess through this Foreign Shipping Practices Act investigation and not to mention right they can. Also, the FMC can also limit or suspend access to US ports and US trades. This is all under the Foreign Shipping Practices Act. The Foreign Shipping Practices Act, and kind of a partner statute, is the Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Those two paired together give the FMC very unique, very powerful authority.
Speaker 1:That doesn't often really get talked too much about and so this, like I said, didn't get a ton of attention, at least not that I saw in the trade presses but is something that is worth paying attention to because this could have some significant ramifications. If we, the United States, through the Federal Maritime Commission, say Canada, you can't bring your ships to the US anymore because we have determined and this is hypothetical, right but if the FMC determines that Canada has been enacting regulations that create a significant what's the threshold here? But a disadvantage, and a significant I've lost the word today, I don't know if you can tell, but I have a little bit of a cold here but a significant disadvantage to the US and a disparaging result for the US. So an interesting section of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act. I'm going to be just kind of reading off some of these Foreign Shipping Practices Act sections that I think are pretty interesting, worth mentioning. We're going to see where this goes. This is just an investigation, this is just the first step, but interesting that it was even opened in the first place because there's some very large potential from what they find.
Speaker 1:So section 4-2-3-0-6 of the US Code Foreign Shipping Practices Act before determination under section 42304 of this title becomes effective or a request is made under section 42305 of this title, the determination shall be submitted immediately to the president. The FMC, before making their final determination, has to submit this to the president. I mean, it goes straight up, and this is interesting because the FMC is an independent regulatory agency, so they're not beholden to the administration, any administration. They're an independent regulatory agency, right, they're beholden. Their bosses are Congress. Their boss really isn't the president. The president can't direct them necessarily and these are kind of general but can't necessarily direct the FMC to do anything. But in this section of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act they have to get the sign off of the president. Before determination under the Foreign Shipping Practices Act becomes effective or a request is made, the determination shall be submitted immediately to the president. The president, within 10 days after receiving it 10 days, that's so fast in terms of things going to the presidential office and getting attention and then being sent back within 10 days after receiving it, may disapprove it in writing, setting forth the reasons for the disapproval. If the president finds that disapproval is required for reasons of national defense or foreign policy Makes sense, right, because you can't have the FMC going and starting beef with Canada without at least at least the president hearing about it beforehand, just in case Maybe next time it won't be with such a friendly Northern country.
Speaker 1:But this is why I wanted to highlight this, because this is really interesting and large scale. Right. So it's just an investigation. Not much has happened yet, but this is a big deal. Like I said, we're in the investigation stage here. But the investigation result in the existence of conditions that one adversely affect the operations of the United States carriers and the United States ocean-borne trade. That's what I was looking for adversely affect Earlier, when I was saying despair, I couldn't remember the words, this is the threshold Adversely affect the operations of US carriers and US oceanborne trade. And it's an and and. Two, do not exist for foreign carriers of that country in the United States under the laws of the US or as a result of acts of US carriers or other persons providing maritime or maritime related services in the United States. So they have to get over that hurdle of the FMC has to review and they're going to be investigating laws, rules, regulations, policies and practices of the foreign government, in this case Canada, to see if there's an existence of conditions that adversely affect the operations of the US. Now the announcement says that this is on ballast water, ballast water systems. So I think we're all about to learn a lot about ballast water systems and how it works in the lake or fleet of the Great Lakes. But this, this is really interesting. This is a really unique thing for the FMC to be looking into and I want to continue that investigation section of the Foreign Shipping Practices Act here because I think it's interesting reading the exact text. You know that I love to do that.
Speaker 1:So B under investigations initiation of an investigation. An investigation under subsection A that was the part I just read may be initiated by the commission on its own motion or on the petition of any person, including another component of the United States government. So in this case it was the Lake Carrier Association, right, but it says it could be initiated by the commission totally on its own or petitioned by any person, and that petition might even come from the United States government. Time for decision. The commission shall complete an investigation under this section and render a decision within 120 days after it's initiated. So that's what we were. That's what the announcement said is that they had 120 days, unless extended. Continuing on here, it says, however, the commission may extend this 120-day period for an additional 90 days if the commission is unable to obtain sufficient information to determine whether a condition specified in subsection A exists, a notice providing an extension shall state clearly the reasons for the extension. So they can't just say we didn't get around to it, right, they have to say like why they're extending it. But 120 days, that's not very long to be doing an investigation into whether these adversely affecting practices exist.
Speaker 1:Now the announcement said September 2024. So I mean there's a potential I'd have to go back and read the petition but there's a potential here that maybe the adverse effect won't actually go into effect until September 2024. So perhaps there's some kind of ripeness to whether the adverse effects are happening yet. Maybe there's some preemptive right. So it says maintain the government relations taking effect, as to some vessels, in September 2024, impose a severe burden on the operations and put American companies and vessels at a disadvantage. So I'm going to keep watching this one.
Speaker 1:Anytime the Foreign Shipping Practices Act or Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 get talked about, it's worth paying attention to because they I don't think the FMC enters into those investigations very lightly and certainly there likely is a little bit of a general bilateral multilateral negotiation that probably is happening leading up to any of these things. But for an investigation to be open, I mean this is a serious matter and this is a serious thing. So I'll continue to watch it because there could be some serious ramifications should the FMC find that there are adverse effects on the operations of US carriers. All right. Story number three. We're still in the story.
Speaker 1:Story number three the final story in yet another FMC issue, right. So on May 29th the FMC announced that there were three compromise agreements that yielded over $2.3 million in penalties and changes to business practices. Again, I'm going to read off the FMC press release because I think they do a good job of kind of encapsulating and that way you get it right from them. The FMC has entered into compromise agreements with three different companies, resulting in the collection of more than $2.3 million in civil penalty payments and commitments by each company to reform specific business practices. The agreements are the results of investigations by the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement, investigations and Compliance. So again, the BEIC used to be Office of Bureau of Enforcement, now it's the Bureau of Enforcement, investigations and Compliance. So the three companies it was CMA CGM, it was Vanguard Logistics Services and it was Shipco Transport Incorporated services and it was shipco transport incorporated. So cmacgm, an ocean common carrier, paid 1 million 975 thousand dollars to resolve allegations that are over broadly defined and applied its definition of merchant in a bill of lading to demand payment from a third party who should not have been billed. So this isn't a bill of lading, they, they said. Cmacgm has terminated this practice and ensures future compliance by amending its US tariff rules to limit the definition of merchant in its bills of lading to shippers, consignees and persons with a beneficial interest in the cargo.
Speaker 1:Continuing on in the press release, vanguard Logistics Services, an ocean transportation intermediary, oti, paid $175,000 to resolve allegations that it knowingly and willfully accepted cargo from or transported cargo for the accounts of OTIs that did not have bonds, insurance or other assurities as required by law. Vanguard has agreed to undertake an audit of its internal practices and procedures and will provide quarterly updates to BEIC on the progress of the audit as well as a report of remedial actions it takes in response to the audit's findings. And the third one here is ship go transport, an oti as well, paid 155 000 to resolve three allegations of misconduct. First, that it knowingly and willfully accepted cargo from or transported cargo for the accounts of otis that did not insurance or other sureties as required by law. Second, that it allowed an unlicensed OTI to obtain transportation for property at less than the rates or charges that would otherwise be applicable. To obtain transportation for property at less than the rates or charges that would otherwise be applicable by providing access to service contracts of an Ocean Common carrier to which the OTI was not a signatory. So, continuing on in this press release, both Vanguard and Shipco have agreed in their respective compromise agreements to fully cooperate with BEIC in any future investigatory or enforcement efforts.
Speaker 1:Compromise agreements are reached prior to the commission initiating formal enforcement actions. I'm going to say that again. The commission in their news release here is saying compromise agreements. These compromise agreements are reached prior to the commission even initiating a formal enforcement action and they highlight the three companies here did not admit to any violations of the law. So right, it's a little bit. This is a compromise agreement. They are paying, but formally they did not admit to any of the violations of the law.
Speaker 1:So penalty payments are deposited. This is really interesting and something that I've mentioned here more than a few times. They mentioned here and I love that the FMC is mentioning this penalty payments are deposited into the general fund of the United States. So when the FMC is issuing these super beefy civil penalties, they don't get that money. That goes into the general fund of the United States. And they even say the Federal Maritime Commission receives no portion from any financial penalties collected. So on the one hand, I mean 1.9 in total, 2.3 million in civil penalties would be great for the FMC because their annual budget is only about $43 million. So I mean, if they were to bump that up by another 2.3, and then we've seen some other compromise agreements recently that were in the millions they could, they could potentially hire more people, take on more right or turn around their rulemakings, maybe a little bit faster, but you know they don't.
Speaker 1:This goes into the general fund of the United States. This goes into the general fund of the United States. So it can't, as it's written now, go into the FMC directly, which, on the other hand, is kind of a good thing, because then that means that when the FMC is going after these civil penalties, they don't really have a personal interest in it, an agency interest in it. It's not for them to make money because they don't see the money. I guess you could argue it's based on the principle of the thing. So that was the press release of the compromise agreements Interested, we have certainly seen the FMC be more active in recent years and certainly some of these larger compromise agreements and larger civil penalties are probably a reflection of that.
Speaker 1:All right, so let's get into the meat and potatoes of the day. We're not going to spend a whole ton of time in the meat and potatoes, but there are a few things that I wanted to bring up that I thought you needed to be aware of or thinking about. So, as we know, the FMC released its final rule on detention demurrage billing practices. The final rule became effective this week and it even included the contents of the invoice right. That was the piece that was possibly delayed by the OMB approval. It received that OMB approval. Everything was set.
Speaker 1:The Paperwork Reduction Act did not slow this down. The entire rule, the entire final rule for detention demurrage became effective on May 28, 2024. The petition did not slow that down, did not delay it, did not pause it. The petition still continues. We'll probably talk about that again another time. We didn't get a ton of information on the May 20th date for the docketed hearing schedule but, yeah, nothing happened there that anybody's made a mention of that affected this rule.
Speaker 1:This rule went into effect on May 28th and they even mentioned it at the hearing on May 29th Yesterday. The rule went into effect. So what does that mean? So Title 46, chapter 4, part 541 is demurrage and detention now, and subpart A, billing requirements and practices. There you will find all of the different things for demurrage and detention, part 541. This new rule, as we know, defines billing practices for detention and demurrage with the main purpose of simplifying and identifying, as they said in their discussion, what is being billed by whom. As they said in their discussion, what is being billed by whom. So through this final rule, the FMC clarifies who may be invoiced.
Speaker 1:Information to be included in the invoice is the timeline for invoicing that's what I'm going to talk about today and requirements for clear invoice dispute processes. But my question today is do you know where that bill is going? Do you know who will be receiving the D&D invoice? So we've talked about this a bunch, right? The key takeaways of what's being changed here clarity that's a big one. There's clarity in this role. Timeliness there are now 30 calendar day requirements for the invoice to be issued and the dispute resolution filing and an attempted resolution to a dispute filing. And the emphasis on direct contractual relationship. Anyone can pay the invoice, but only the direct contractual relationship or the consignee can be sent, can be issued that invoice. And it's that last part, now that the rule is effective and the billing party is required to only send the invoice, or mandated to only send the invoice to the directly contractual relationship build party or the consignee, but not both and nobody else. So issue the invoice. Do you know where that invoice is going? Is it coming to you now? Do you know which email it's going to? You basically have just under 30 days now to figure that out before you're going to have to start chasing them down or potentially risk losing your ability to dispute the invoice under the business-to-business B2B dispute guidelines under this final rule. So let's break this down a little bit, right? So what am I talking about here.
Speaker 1:The new rule states so section 5401.4, properly issued invoice. So a properly issued invoice is a demerger detention invoice issued by a billing party to the person for whose account the billing party provided ocean transportation or storage of cargo and who contracted with the billing party for the ocean transportation or storage of cargo. So that's the direct contractual relationship or the consignee. It's on part two. And then it says if a billing party issues a demerit or detention invoice to the person identified in paragraph A1, so that's a direct contractual relationship it cannot also issue a demerit or detention invoice to the person identified in paragraph A2 of the section. So direct contractual relationship or the consignee and this is saying not both, section C a billing party cannot issue an invoice to any other person. So that's why I say direct contractual relationship or the consignee, not both and not to anybody else.
Speaker 1:So what does this mean operationally? Well, so if you had a 3PL right, a warehouse or a drayman, a dray provider, taking care of this previously, you may want to check to see where those invoices will be going now Because, like I said, it needs to be, it will be issued to the direct contractual relationship. So where you might've had somebody taking care of that previously. One check those contracts right Check to see if the contract still says that they will be paying it, because anybody can pay it. But it is only going to be issued to the direct contractual relationship or the consignee, not both and nobody else, and that's issued to. There's a little bit of a question on whether it can be sent to other people, but as this rule is rolling out, I just want to encourage everybody to take a look at those contracts.
Speaker 1:Take a look at maybe the actual specific operational piece of this. What email address does the billing party have for you as the build party? Where are they going to be sending that? You could wait to find out or you can maybe be a little proactive on it. Just look into it to see if you know where that's going to be going, because it's going to be a lot easier if you know where it's going before it leaves the billing party, before it gets issued, than to try to track it down later and figure out where the heck it went.
Speaker 1:So, like I said, if you have this 3PL, make sure that you know, because the issuance of that D&D invoice is going to the direct contractual relationship, which might not be that 3PL. If you still want the 3PL to take care of it, figure out a way to send it over there or somehow work that out. It's all. It's all about those contracts. What does your contract say? What is the agreement on file? But look, the other part of this rule is the 30-30-30 timeline. Those are the 30 calendar days. It's 30 days to issue the invoice, 30 calendar days to issue the invoice from the last activity, at least 30 days to file a dispute, business to business and then an attempt to have it resolved in 30 days. So that's that 30, 30, 30.
Speaker 1:So this is section 541.7, issuance of demerge and detention invoices. So A a billing party must issue a demerge or detention invoice within 30 calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred. If the billing party does not issue a deferred detention invoice within 30 calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred, then the billed party is not required to pay the charge. Be careful with any of these. Doesn't require payment pieces. Make sure that you are correct, because if you get that wrong you might be affecting your other cargo too. But don't take my word for it. Seek legal advice on any of the applications for any of your specific information. This is not legal advice directly related to your matter. This is just general educational discussion.
Speaker 1:So a billing party must issue a D&D invoice within 30 calendar days from the date on which the last charge was incurred. Request for mitigation, refund or waiver this is section 541.8. The billing party must allow the billed party at least 30 calendar days from the invoice issuance date to request mitigation, refund or waiver of fees from the billing party. So it said the billing party must allow the billed party at least 30 calendar days from the invoice issuance date to request mitigation. So here's my point If they're issuing that invoice and they're allowing at least 30 calendar days for you to dispute it or request mitigation, refund, waiver, whatever it is, you have to receive it right. But that's not part of what's being said here. It said a billing party must issue a D&D invoice within 30 calendar days on which the charge was last incurred. I don't necessarily see and this is not legal advice, but I don't necessarily see receipt must be confirmed. It just says must issue a D&D invoice and then it says the billing party must allow the billed party at least 30 calendar days from the issuance of that invoice to request mitigation, refund or waiver of fees. So you got to be on it. You got to know, if you're the build party, where's the invoice, do you have it and can you get it within? Do you do you know where it is and can you turn around within 30 calendar days, or at least within 30 calendar days, to file a dispute if needed? If you don't need to file a dispute, that's fine, that's actually great. So if a billing party receives a fee mitigation, refund or waiver request from a billed party, the billing party must attempt to resolve the request within 30 calendar days. That's that last 30. So 30, 30, 30, right 30 to issue at least 30 from the issuance date to request mitigation. And then from there, if a billing party receives a fee mitigation from a billed party, the billing party must attempt to resolve their request within 30 calendar days of receiving such a request. So there is one receipt but it's receiving the request for mitigation. So that's what I wanted to bring up.
Speaker 1:There was one other little thing that I wanted to mention here, section 541.7, that I wanted to mention in paragraph D. If the billing party invoices an incorrect person, the billing party may issue an invoice to the correct billed party, provided that such issuance is within 30 calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred. There was previously some questions around that. With the 13 invoice requirements of ASRA, this allows the billing party to correct their mistake, as long as they do it within that initial 30 calendar days period, right? So provided that such issuance is within 30 calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred, so that's the same 30 days, for the issuance is within 30 calendar days from the date on which the charge was last incurred. So that's the same 30 days for the issuance for the invoice in general.
Speaker 1:But if they send it to the wrong person, if the billing party invoices an incorrect person, the billing party may issue an invoice to the correct billed party. That doesn't necessarily say to me that they sent it to the wrong email although there might be some discussion as part of that but it says invoice is an incorrect person. So the correct person is that direct contractual relationship or a consignee, not both and nobody else. And that's my point. Make sure that you know who will be, who is supposed to be, who is a properly issued invoice going to, and does the billing party have the email address. If that's how it's being exchanged, do they have the proper email address for where it should go? Because here we are, we're three days into this rule. You have 27 days left because they're calendar days. You have 27 days left, 26 days left because they're calendar days. You have 27 days left with 26 days, really probably days left if you had D&D happen on the 28th. And yeah, so that's my point.
Speaker 1:It's not legal advice directly related to your matter. This is just simply something to consider educational discussion on what the operational impacts of the detention to merge rule may look like and things to just keep in mind as we start to see this rule unfold now that it's out in the wild. So that's it for today. Tune in every week as we continue to break down the D&D rule periodically and continue to provide updates on some of the hottest topics in ocean and surface transportation.
Speaker 1:As always, the guidance here is general, for educational purposes. It should not be construed to be legal advice directly related to your matter. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney, but if you have specific legal questions, feel free to reach out to me at my legal companies, squall Strategies. Otherwise, for the non-legal questions, the e-learning and industry information and insights. Come find me at the Maritime Professor. If you like these videos, let me know, comment, like and share. If you want to listen to these episodes on demand, or if you missed any previous episodes, check out the podcast by landed by sea. If you prefer to see the video, they live on my youtube page by landed by sea, presented by the maritime professor. While you're at it, check out the website maritimeprofessorcom until next week. This is lauren vegan, the maritime professor, and you've just listened to by land and by sea. See you next time.