Every few years, the shipping industry reaches a moment when rules, responsibilities and business expectations collide, and the latest season in the United States is one of those moments.
The Federal Maritime Commission’s 2024 final rule on billing and impounding was intended to bring transparency and fairness throughout a system that has frustrated shippers, shippers and truckers for years.
This was a rule created by Congress through OSRA 2022, based on the need for transparency, and with the goal of aligning billing with contractual logic.
But on September 23, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down a key section, one that determined World Health Organization Operators and terminal operators authorized to bill…
And this single change, in my view, has the potential to reopen the very uncertainty that FMC was trying to eliminate.
What FMC originally needed
The FMC final rule introduced strict standards regarding timing, content, accuracy, and transparency.
Critically, section 541.4 is limited World Health Organization can receive a warning or detention invoice:
- The party who has contracted with the carrier for the carriage or storage of the cargo or
- receiver
That was it.. no third party.. no middleman.. no operational service provider..
The logic was logical.. The party that has a contractual relationship is the party that has both vision and the right to dispute or the receiver who is going to receive the goods.. He drew a straight and clean line of accountability.
What did the court overturn and why?
The court vacated section 541.4, not because the idea was wrong, but because the FMC had not adequately justified why the two categories made sense under administrative law.
The court said the Commission’s explanation was inconsistent, for example, by excluding consignees (who may not have contractual immunity) while excluding motor carriers (who sometimes do).
Therefore, the court removed the restriction completely.
It did not replace it with a new law. Simply removed the FMC border.
Everything else in the billing rule remains in full force. But clarity around World Health Organization Can be billed now gone..
What does this reversal mean in practice?
With the removal of section 541.4, shipping companies and marine terminal operators can now revert to whatever their bills of lading, service contracts or tariffs allow.
This means a possible return to more widespread billing practices, including bills issued to intermediaries who never intended to take on the responsibility.
And this is where the example of a motor carrier (with a truck) becomes important..
Why invoicing middlemen like truckers makes no business sense
The example of the truck driver shows the main problem of removing the FMC restriction.
The motor carrier is rarely the beneficiary of the cargo between the carrier and the customer. They are usually appointed by their client, mainly the buyer/receiver/receiver, whatever term you want to use.
They do not negotiate free time, port availability, vessel schedules, storage conditions, or demurrage rules (unless different in the USA).
- receiver
- sender
- NVOCC or Forwarder
- Or the shipping company itself if it is store/door delivery
They rely on instructions from the party that actually owns the business relationship with the shipping company.
If billing is appropriate, it should be between the contracting party and the trucker, not directly from the ocean carrier to the trucker.
There is only one exception and that is a fact Carrying cargo In this scenario, the business relationship is clear, and if the truck driver is at fault, billing is contractual.
But this is the rare exception, not the everyday reality of commercial shipping.
Why is this important to the entire industry?
The FMC Act sought to avoid confusion and finger-pointing by ensuring that the invoice reaches the contracting party.
The court did not reject this logic. Just said FMC should justify it more clearly.
Until the Commission reissues the revised version, the industry risks reverting to old habits of sending invoices without sightings, without contractual leverage, and without any control over the circumstances that gave rise to the charges.
In other words, the very actions that OSRA 2022 and the FMC sought to prevent.
my point of view
The principle remains unchanged. The notice and lien must be sent to the party who controls the contract and movement of the goods and who can contest the charge.
Intermediaries such as truckers should not be drawn into this cycle unless they are contracted directly in a transport movement.
The sooner the FMC reinstates a clarified version of Section 541.4, the better for everyone involved in moving containers.
related
About the Author
