One of the largest settlements under the Jones Act was reached when two seafood shipping firms operating in Alaska agreed to pay the U.S. government $9.5 million for their violations.
The Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, is an essential federal law created to support and maintain the American merchant marine. The law mainly regulates maritime trade between and within U.S. ports and waters. It requires that any cargo moved by water between ports in the United States be carried on ships that meet specific requirements. These vessels must be built in the United States, fly the American flag, be owned by citizens of the United States, and have crews consisting of citizens and permanent residents.
Representation Image
The action against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) challenged the penalties imposed for violations of the legislation. Alaska Reefer Management LLC (ARM) and Kloosterboer International Forwarding LLC (KIF) took advantage of a Jones Act exemption allowing Alaskan seafood to be transported by Canadian rail to the United States mainland. However, they employed a small rail track in Canada as part of their arrangement, which CBP considered an unlawful attempt to get around the Act’s provisions.
The enterprises shipped frozen fish via a port in New Brunswick, Canada, from Dutch Harbor, Alaska, to the U.S. East Coast for over ten years. After arriving in Canada on foreign-flagged vessels, the seafood was loaded onto trucks and placed onto a flatbed rail car on the specially constructed “Bayside Canadian Railway (BCR),” a roughly 100-foot railroad track in the Port of Bayside.
Following an inquiry, CBP found that the BCR did not fit the requirements for the Canadian rail exception, which led to Jones Act violations. The corporations were hit with hefty fines, which sparked a legal dispute in which they claimed the fines were illegal.
Representation Image
According to the Act’s exceptions, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska decided against the corporations, finding that their use of the BCR for transportation was illegal. As a result, a settlement was achieved that mandates KIF and ARM to give the U.S. government $9.5 million.
U.S. Attorney S. Lane Tucker for the District of Alaska stated that this is the second-largest settlement of a case brought under the Jones Act in the history of the United States, highlighting the significance of obeying rules associated with marine commerce.
The Executive Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, AnnMarie R. Highsmith, said that the settlement demonstrates the CBP’s dedication to upholding regulations such as the Jones Act to safeguard American industry. The resolution emphasises the value of lawful marine trade and clarifies that breaking the law will result in consequences.
Reference: Justice.gov
Advertisement
Disclaimer : The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. While we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.
Advertisement
About Author
Marine Insight News Network is a premier source for up-to-date, comprehensive, and insightful coverage of the maritime industry. Dedicated to offering the latest news, trends, and analyses in shipping, marine technology, regulations, and global maritime affairs, Marine Insight News Network prides itself on delivering accurate, engaging, and relevant information.
Latest Shipping News Articles You Would Like:
Subscribe To Our Newsletters
By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and may receive occasional deal communications; you can unsubscribe anytime.
JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.
The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.
The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.
According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.
Advertisement
This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.
See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com
A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)
This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.
Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?
It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.
Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.
Advertisement
A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.
Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.
Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.
That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.
Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.
Advertisement
This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.
Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”
• • •
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
