Tag: penalties

Australian pollution law Oil pollution indemnity clause for penalties and fines

Information provided by the West of Engalnd P&I Club The West of England P&I Club continues to encounter instances of vessels being fined in Turkish waters for pollution by substances other than oil. Section 8 of the Turkish Environmental Code 1983 states (in part) that:"It is prohibited, to introduce into, store in, transport to or remove from the receptor area any discharge or waste in such a way as to inflict damage on the environment or in a way directly or indirectly in contradiction with the standards and methods specified in the pertinent regulations, or to engage in similar activities".This provision is widely interpreted and rigorously enforced, to the extent that vessels have even been fined for pumping out clean ballast water. Ships at anchor off Istanbul are monitored particularly closely.Fines are imposed in accordance with a published tariff, which is revised annually. The amount of the fine is determined by the size of the vessel and the type of pollutant, rather than the quantity of pollutant. In almost all cases the fine must be paid in cash. The amount may be reduced by 25% if either settled immediately, prior to the vessel sailing or within a maximum of 30 ...

Violated numerous provisions of the Shipping Act The Federal Maritime Commission announced a compromise agreement under which Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. has paid $1,200,000 in civil penalties.Known as MOL throughout the ocean carrier industry, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines is a vessel-operating common carrier headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, that operates in the U.S.-foreign trades and globally.Federal Maritime Commission Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. stated: "These penalties should serve as a reminder that the Commissions hard-working Area Representatives and Bureau of Enforcement remain vigilant on the shipping publics behalf. If youre violating the law, sooner or later, we will find you, and the consequences can be serious."The compromise agreement resolved allegations that MOL violated numerous provisions of the Shipping Act through activities that included: (1) misdescription of commodities; (2) unlawful equipment substitution; (3) providing transportation services to and entering into service contracts with unlicensed, untariffed, and unbonded ocean transportation intermediaries; (4) permitting use of service contracts by persons who were not parties to those contracts; and (5) providing transportation that was not in accordance with the rates and charges set forth in MOLs published tariffs. Commission staff alleged that these practices persisted over a period of several years and involved numerous service contracts.Under ...