FMC’s latest enforcement action contributes USD 1.35 million to U.S. Treasury pcr

Regulatory enforcement within U.S.-bound shipping continues to gain momentum.. On 18 November 2025, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) announced the recovery of USD 1,350,000 in civil penalties through two compromise agreements..

Summary of the enforcement actions

Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd., USD 1.3 million settlement

The FMC alleged that Hyundai Glovis:

• Provided liner services not in accordance with its published commercial tariffs, and
• Operated without maintaining tariffs that reflected all active rates, charges, classifications, and rules as required..

As per the statement, FMC staff alleged that these practices persisted for over a year and involved numerous shipments.. Hyundai Glovis made a payment of $1,300,000 in compromise of these allegations without admitting any violation..

Olympiad Line LLC, USD 50,000 settlement

The NVOCC faced allegations of offering services inconsistent with its published tariffs and settled on the same non-admission basis..

“Olympiad violated the Shipping Act by providing service in the liner trade that was not in accordance with the rates, charges, classifications, rules, and practices contained in its published tariff.  Olympiad made a payment of $50,000 in compromise of these allegations,” read the FMC statement..

All collected penalties are remitted to the U.S. Treasury..

A tale of two “tariffs”

At a time when global headlines are dominated by tariffs in the customs sense, the import duties applied at borders, it is important to emphasise that the “tariffs” referenced in this FMC case are not customs duties..

They are commercial rate tariffs that carriers and NVOCCs must publish under the Shipping Act, detailing their freight rates, surcharges, rules, and service conditions..

Failing to publish or follow these tariffs is a regulatory breach, separate and distinct from paying import duties..

Because the word “tariff” is dominating global trade headlines, particularly around U.S.-China, EU-U.S., and African regional duty regimes, it is essential to separate the two concepts:

1. Customs tariffs (import/export duties)

These are the government-imposed taxes on goods entering a country.. They are currently a political and economic flashpoint across global trade..

2. FMC commercial tariffs (carrier/NVOCC service tariffs)

These are not taxes.. They are the published schedules of freight rates, surcharges, accessorials, rules, and service conditions that VOCCs and NVOCCs must display publicly when offering liner services in U.S. trades..

The FMC penalties relate only to the second category..

This distinction matters because many shippers assume that “tariff issues” relate solely to customs duties, when in practice carriers also face strict obligations around the transparency and application of their commercial tariffs..

Why these cases matter for industry stakeholders

1. Transparency in commercial tariffs is mandatory..

Failure to publish or update freight rates, bunker charges, documentation fees, or service practices can result in significant penalties..

2. Deviation from published tariffs exposes carriers to enforcement..

Unpublished surcharges, informal discounts or inconsistent application of rules breach FMC requirements..

3. U.S. jurisdiction applies regardless of a carrier’s home country..

Any carrier operating in U.S.–foreign trades is subject to these obligations..

4. Shippers and SMEs must distinguish between customs duties and carrier tariffs..

Many SMEs currently focus on geopolitical tariff changes (duties), but they must also ensure their logistics partners comply with commercial tariff rules..

Non-compliance upstream can lead to billing disputes, financial exposure or contract irregularities downstream..

5. FMC enforcement is intensifying..

Post-OSRA, the FMC has increased monitoring of rate transparency, billing practices and carrier behaviour.. The latest enforcement actions reinforce this trend..

Practical steps for carriers, NVOCCs, and forwarders

• Conduct a full tariff governance review
• Confirm that your commercial tariffs:
  • Are published as required
  • Reflect all current rates and charges
  • Align with actual operational practices
• Audit commercial practices against filed tariffs
• Ensure rate exceptions, discounts, or accessorials are properly updated in the published tariff
• Strengthen compliance and documentation
• Internal audits help identify discrepancies before they reach the FMC’s radar

Cargo owners should request tariff clarity from your service providers because understanding the commercial tariff, in addition to customs duties, helps prevent downstream disputes..

Broader implications for the maritime sector

This enforcement outcome illustrates that while global attention is more on trade wars, retaliatory duties, and customs tariff changes, regulators are simultaneously tightening oversight on carrier transparency and pricing governance..

Digitalisation, dynamic pricing models, and volatile markets are transforming shipping, but the core requirement for clear, published, and consistently applied commercial tariffs remains unchanged..

For shippers and logistics providers, this strengthens the case for:

• Better due diligence on carriers,
• Stronger contract management, and
• Greater focus on regulatory alignment across service providers..

Conclusion

The FMC’s recovery of USD 1.35 million in penalties sends a clear industry-wide message: while global politics debates customs tariffs, maritime regulators are enforcing an equally important requirement, adherence to commercial tariff transparency..

In the current uncertain environment, compliance with these foundational rules remains essential for operational stability, fairness, and accountability across the supply chain..

Related