Josue Ramos’ Post

The trailer being rejected at the pickup is one of the most frustrating situations for all the parties involved. Turning down trailers that are damaged, dirty/stained, too old, or unsafe, are protecting carriers as well from potential claims but there is a big gray area where the same trailers may be accepted or rejected at the same facility, depending on the shift, day or night, weather conditions, and even freight market conditions. Regardless if rejection was justified or not, the shipper's inspection protocol in place has a tremendous impact on how the whole situation can be resolved and it seems that many shippers (and brokers/customers) are not aware of how small adjustments can help all the parties involved. Situation (1): At 12PM Friday in Chicago, the driver arrived at the pickup but we got a notification at 12:15 PM that at check-in, the shipper discovered the stains on the floor of the trailer. The driver was empty last 2 days at home and we were not aware of it, it was probably from the previous load and he failed to notify us. There was not enough time to wash it/or dry it so we notified the shipper and broker that we would send a driver to pick up a different trailer from our yard in Lemont, IL and they were happy to accommodate it. He gets loaded with a different trailer around 3:45 PM. A lot of time was wasted but everyone was pleased at the end. Situation (2): 12PM Friday in rural AR, our truck arrives for pickup at the same facility where we picked up hundreds of loads, many of those with that same trailer and the same driver. He needs to scale 1st at the shipper's scale and after that, he waits until 3 PM to get the door. We didn't panic, we knew we would get detention if necessary, and delivery was on Monday but at 3:45 PM, when he already had a door, the trailer got rejected due to the wet floor. The driver tried to explain that the floor was wet from previous unloading (it was raining a lot that day) and by the time we exchanged pictures, and got the broker on the phone, it was past 4 PM and the shipper was closing until Monday. The truck and driver got stuck in AR over the weekend and the load was not picked up. (1) and (2) had similar timeframes and issues but completely different outcomes. If this shipper (2) performed an inspection after the truck's arrival, at the entrance gate, and had better lines of communication we had a chance a) to explain better our situation or b) send a different truck/trailer that was empty in the area at the time. #dryvan #loading #transportation

Civil servants abusing vehicle rebate advantage Civil servants are under probe for allegedly abusing the vehicle rebate system as it emerged that some government employees were importing cars duty free on behalf of other people for a fee. Statutory Instrument (SI) 154 of 2001 (Customs and Excise General Regulations) as read with SI 124 of 2022, promulgated in July 2022 provides for a rebate of duty on motor vehicles imported or taken out of bond by civil servants and members of independent commissions. A government employee must possess a valid driver’s license and must have served for not less than 10 years. Only one vehicle can be imported every five years and its value depends on the employee’s grade. Lifestyle Connect has learnt that the rebate system is being abused, necessitating the probe by Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission #ZACC and the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) Official . ZACC deputy chairperson, Kuziwa Murapa, said that by October last year, 19 000 civil servants were already under investigation for corruption involving the abuse of the import duty on vehicles. The civil servants are importing vehicles for other people for a fee ranging from US$700 and US$1 500. The vehicle, however, will be registered in the name of the civil servant involved while being driven by the other person. Government extended the waiver for civil servants to import vehicles duty free. There are fears, however, that imported cars are ending up at car dealers. They are being paid as much as US$1 000 for each vehicle depending on the make and price. The fraud has prejudiced the State of revenue as people who should pay duty are now importing cars duty free. A civil servant who requested anonymity said: “ZIMRA in conjunction with ZACC are arresting civil servants over rebates. They are accusing them of being fraudulent. They check the reference number that would be on the rebate [form], and they say it is fake,” said the victim. Zimbabwe Confederation of Public Sector Trade Unions chairperson, David Dzatsunga, acknowledged the existence of cases where civil servants are being accused of allegedly abusing the rebate scheme. “We have heard cases of that nature where people are alleged to have fraudulently abused the scheme. They import cars for other people other than themselves and then they have these funny arrangements. When it comes to issues that are illegal, there is not much that we can do. I am sure the authorities would be doing the investigations,” Dzatsunga said. Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe president Takavafira Zhou said: “One of the issues is that when you apply for the rebate and you want to buy a car, the processing time and the time when you want to buy a car are different. The process is frustrating; the process goes through the district, province and head office. Mind you the rebates are not mainly for teachers but those in high ranks in government,” Zhou said.

Since the beginning of this year, shipping prices have skyrocketed, leading to a phenomenon where containers are in extremely short supply. Due to the high demand, shipping companies have also started releasing cargo space through alternative methods. Recently, an American furniture dealer, PKDC, filed a lawsuit with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), seeking $12 million in compensation from French shipping giant CMA CGM. The dealer claims that CMA CGM’s failure to provide the agreed-upon number of containers as stipulated in the contract forced them to seek alternative shipping solutions, resulting in over $12 million in additional transportation and transshipment costs. Despite breaching the contract, CMA CGM continued to sell cargo space to PKDC at higher prices. In PKDC’s lawsuit, there is a statement that resonates with many shippers, reflecting a situation that numerous cargo owners have experienced firsthand. “Although the carrier refused to transport the goods according to the contract, the same cargo appeared on CMA CGM’s ships after purchasing cargo space at a higher price.” Encountering such unfair treatment can indeed provoke anger among many cargo owners. However, most shipping companies operate in a manner that is tacitly accepted by the majority of cargo owner companies, which rely on these companies for exporting goods via sea transportation. However, PKDC has taken a different approach by citing a series of unreasonable actions by CMA CGM in their complaint. Apart from the breach of contract and price hikes, PKDC also alleges issues with CMA CGM’s fee policies. Between August and November 2022, PKDC paid approximately $1 million in demurrage and detention fees, which, according to PKDC, were incurred due to CMA CGM’s own insufficient space, and thus should not be borne by the shipper. One after another, the “evidence” is pushing CMA CGM into the spotlight. It’s worth noting that another transportation company, Access One Transport, has also filed a claim against CMA CGM for approximately $77,000 due to issues with returning empty containers. This series of disputes undoubtedly will impact CMA CGM’s reputation and market position. Cargo owners are having a tough time Cargo owners are facing dire circumstances. As the shipping industry enters its peak season, freight companies often engage in a practice known as “container rolling” to ensure vessels are fully loaded. Once vessels are overloaded, they reject loading goods from shippers with lower freight rates or weaker relationships, delaying their shipments to subsequent voyages. Direct victims include shippers, cargo owners, and freight forwarders, who may face delivery delays, re-declarations, or customs inspections, and even risk losing customers. However, reliable freight companies are limited, and they may also impose additional charges on cargo owners, leaving many with no choice but to reluctantly

OK, we all read the articles from FreightWaves ,OverDrive FreightCaviar and others. We have seen the social media posts from trade associations praising congress for stepping up by introducing a new Bill Before we all go crazy and congratulate lawmakers for introducing H.R. 8505 - INTRODUCTION OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, I highly recommend that industry stakeholders take a moment to read the proposed legislation rather than simply rely on news articles about it. I have included a link here https://lnkd.in/eArPQkph H.R. 8505 seems to apply to household goods carriers, brokers, and Freight forwarders. It also clearly references “consumer protection provisions”. As a matter of fact, “Household Goods” and “Consumer Protection Act” is its name. The Bill seems to be a “business to consumer” measure rather than a business to business legislation. It needs to be both. This Bill needs to be modified immediately to specifically include ALL motor carriers, freight brokers, and freight forwarders. Household Goods carriers make up less than 1% of the all motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders. In terms of safety, 98% of accidents involving a commercial motor vehicle are those entities that are not household carriers. Back in the August 23, 2013 Federal Register, FMCSA proposed a budget of more than $360 million to update the registration vetting processes over the next 10 years. The Document stated that the agency has the authority to vet all motor carriers and brokers. However, in footnote 68 of that same document, it says that although the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is authorized to vet all motor carriers it is currently only vetting household goods carriers, and passenger carriers. Public Law 112–141 better known as MAP-21 specifically gives the Secretary of Transportation, the authority to revoke or withhold the authority of those entities that did not disclose affiliation with other MC certificate holders Further 49 CFR paragraph 390.5 T prohibits the use of virtual addresses. For more than 10 years, the FMCSA has not been complying with his own regulations. That is largely why we are in the position we are today in terms of systemic fraudulent activity Much of what is being proposed in HR 8505 already exists in MAP-21. I understand that in 2019 a Department of Transportation Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the FMCSA lacks authority to assess civil penalties. But, if the issue is important enough to change the law, why in the past 5 years has that ALJ’s ruling not been appealed? Further, by lying on the initial application, the applicant could be charged with perjury, which one could argue is not necessarily an offense that is under the “commercial” jurisdiction of the FMCSA and could therefore be prosecuted by the Justice Department. Seems to me like smoke & mirrors in an election year. Im no lawyer, just my opinion. What say you? FreightValidate ✅

OK, we all read the articles from FreightWaves ,OverDrive FreightCaviar and others. We have seen the social media posts from trade associations praising congress for stepping up by introducing a new Bill Before we all go crazy and congratulate lawmakers for introducing H.R. 8505 - INTRODUCTION OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, I highly recommend that industry stakeholders take a moment to read the proposed legislation rather than simply rely on news articles about it. I have included a link here https://lnkd.in/eArPQkph H.R. 8505 seems to apply to household goods carriers, brokers, and Freight forwarders. It also clearly references “consumer protection provisions”. As a matter of fact, “Household Goods” and “Consumer Protection Act” is its name. The Bill seems to be a “business to consumer” measure rather than a business to business legislation. It needs to be both. This Bill needs to be modified immediately to specifically include ALL motor carriers, freight brokers, and freight forwarders. Household Goods carriers make up less than 1% of the all motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders. In terms of safety, 98% of accidents involving a commercial motor vehicle are those entities that are not household carriers. Back in the August 23, 2013 Federal Register, FMCSA proposed a budget of more than $360 million to update the registration vetting processes over the next 10 years. The Document stated that the agency has the authority to vet all motor carriers and brokers. However, in footnote 68 of that same document, it says that although the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is authorized to vet all motor carriers it is currently only vetting household goods carriers, and passenger carriers. Public Law 112–141 better known as MAP-21 specifically gives the Secretary of Transportation, the authority to revoke or withhold the authority of those entities that did not disclose affiliation with other MC certificate holders Further 49 CFR paragraph 390.5 T prohibits the use of virtual addresses. For more than 10 years, the FMCSA has not been complying with his own regulations. That is largely why we are in the position we are today in terms of systemic fraudulent activity Much of what is being proposed in HR 8505 already exists in MAP-21. I understand that in 2019 a Department of Transportation Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the FMCSA lacks authority to assess civil penalties. But, if the issue is important enough to change the law, why in the past 5 years has that ALJ’s ruling not been appealed? Further, by lying on the initial application, the applicant could be charged with perjury, which one could argue is not necessarily an offense that is under the “commercial” jurisdiction of the FMCSA and could therefore be prosecuted by the Justice Department. Seems to me like smoke & mirrors FreightValidate ✅ TIA (Transportation Intermediaries Association) MyCarrierPortal

I tell you something that pisses me off..... The movement guarantee racket. That's what. Moving duty suspended goods between the UK and other countries is made SO much more difficult, particularly for smaller producers and importers, by our beloved HMRC. Not only is it a practically impossible task to secure one (or even find out HOW to secure one!), but it can be eye wateringly expensive too. I've heard tales of £20k + investments for something which the treasury say that shipments MUST have. But what does this 'guarantee' actually guarantee? Well....not much really. It only covers your goods from your property to the UK port of exit - and then only if stolen or destroyed. So if Dick Turpin turns up on the M1 to steal a pallet of DIPA's, then you're covered. If they're stolen/destroyed in Europe or beyond then that's a whole other thing. Effectively it's expensive insurance on top of insurance. The knock on effect of NOT having one is that importers get held to ransom by transport companies who can charge arbitrary fees for using their movement guarantee numbers. This, in turn, ends up ruling out some amazing breweries within certain price brackets even though the importer would love to have them. (I don't know how many times I've heard 'If they don't have a movement guarantee I can't take it.') Don't even get me started on the government EMCS portal and how complicated that makes life. At a time when many drinks companies, large and small, are struggling to stay afloat surely there's got to be an easier way? Red tape rant over...... #craftbeer #export

The proof is in the pudding or don't just talk the talk you need to walk the walk both come to mind when reading the last sentence of this article. The steps taken by the FMC in the area of D&D are heading in the right direction, let's hope they reach their destination. Not only are truckers, in many cases, faced with the misdirected D&D invoices but they also incur extra operational costs in futile trips etc, that also in many cases have to be absorbed as shippers may refuse to pay them. These issues are global and not just an impact on USA truckers / customs brokers / freight forwarders. Freight & Trade Alliance (FTA) have been advocating for sometime that costs such as Infrastructure Fees (Terminal access fees) at both CTO's and ECP's should be directed to the shipping lines (who contract the work to these parties) and can then, if they wish, charge the shippers directly and not have the costs travel a circuitous route from CTOs / ECPs thru transport / brokers/ forwarders before the shipper actually sees the charge. Shipping Lines also should be held to account when issuing detention invoices when their nominated ECPs are full, closed or unable to accept empty containers. We have a long way to go - maybe some light reading by government ministers of the report handed to them some 18mths ago by the productivity commission on Australia's Maritime Supply Chain may give some light to solutions.

For an asset-based carrier, late fees are expected as part of the contract, the same way detention, layover, or "truck order not used" are. While many carriers usually focus and complain about the amounts listed, I am more concerned about other details that would trigger short payments. In general terms, there are 2 types of late fees: 1) Clearly stated late pickup/delivery fees that are waived in case of legit breakdown, extreme weather, or sudden driver illness (that would interfere with public safety), or any other event outside carrier control that is timely communicated. It is basically there to confirm good communication and business practices on the carrier side, and I wouldn't mind if every contract with a good intended broker or customer has a $500+ penalty for non-compliance.  Unfortunately, some brokers/customers can abuse it and short-pay without a valid reason, the same way some carriers can fake reasons for delays. As always, it is a 2-way street, and it depends on the integrity of both sides. 2) Late fees applied under any circumstances are where I get way more selective. Guaranteed on-time delivery can be a legitimate request to avoid rescheduling fees or potential production delays, as long as it is made clear in advance that the carrier will be penalized even if the delay was out of his/her control. It can make sense if the high risk/high reward is justified with the rate. The problem starts when the broker/customer doesn't communicate clearly the full nature of the shipment, as well as the carrier doing the same with their driver(s). The situation becomes even more complicated when those critical loads hit the load boards and are handled by inexperienced or negligent brokers and/or carrier representatives. 594 miles, full load for the next-day delivery, which is pretty standard in our industry, can easily escalate into a major issue in the wrong hands with only a 30-minute window delivery window (penalties for both early and 1-minute late delivery). The critical loads with heavy fines that are not given appropriate attention from all the sides involved are a recipe for huge monetary losses and ruined reputations and relationships. #transportation #logistics #freight

What goes around comes around! Been reading a lot, recently, about brokers sticking carriers on detention and layovers. I wonder why people dislike us?🧐🤔 Is this due to pricing freight so low that they lose money, and then make that up in unpaid accessorials? Certainly seems like it! I worked with one of those carriers, yesterday. They told me a broker had stiffed them on 7 hours detention AND a layover. If truly warranted, I can’t fathom doing that to a carrier. We have almost 300 company trucks, and we treat drivers like our own. We see/hear about our own drivers getting ripped, and I would never allow that. Feels like all ethics go out the window when things get like this. BE BETTER! #Transportation #Ethics #Logistics #SupplyChain #BeBetter #SHExpress #SHTransport

Have you recently booked a guaranteed shipment as a shipper or broker with a carrier and they fall back on their guaranteed rate? This recently happened with one of our shipments. We booked a guaranteed Hot Rush shipment on a shared truck for 3 pallets, from NY to Canada where the dispatcher confirmed via phone and email it is guaranteed to deliver in 3 days with team drivers. The pickup was scheduled picking up Tuesday and delivering Friday (today). On Wednesday, they mentioned the highway is closed down for 5 hours, delayed and cannot make it for the Friday delivery. All day, going back and forth arguing on it, (they had 3 days to travel 38 hours of driving with team drivers) the carrier understood the sensitivity of the shipment and said they will do their best to deliver as guaranteed for Friday. As of now, it seems it will be delivered for today (Friday), late afternoon. My question to you is, if shipper or broker to guarantee a shipment and a trucker fails to uphold the guarantee, should the shipper or broker be responsible to pay the full amount? If there would be a deduction, what is fair? #guaranteed #results #logistics #payment #whatwouldyoudo Let Freight Country help service you with your shipping needs. Keeping you, your clients, and your business happy.