Forwarders object to ‘ill-defined’ surcharges

Complaints against the host of often
ill-defined surcharges imposed
by shipping lines have once again
emerged, with forwarders’ umbrella
bodies resurrecting their on-going
objections to them.
The British International Freight
Association (Bifa) has repeated the
call it made earlier this year for an
end to surcharges.
Forwarders do not like them,
said Bifa director general Robert
Keen. “We have been challenging
their legitimacy on behalf of our
members – and their customers –
for many years,” he added.
He pointed out that the
reasonably justifiable surcharges for
peak season, fuel and currency were
familiar to the forwarding industry.
However, the number of surcharges
has been on the increase, often with
no real explanation or justification,
according to Keen. “For instance,”
he added, “what does an extra
‘administration fee’ or ‘container
sealing fee’ cover that is not in the
standard service offered?”
The problem for forwarders was
in justifying all these rather vaguely
named extra charges to their clients.
While forwarders did all they
could to minimise the effects of
the surcharges, Keen said, “at
least some of the costs need to
be passed on to the customers
and there is sometimes an unfair
perception that our members are
to blame”.
He remained adamant that
additional surcharges imposed
by shipping lines should not be
allowed.
David Logan, CEO of the
SA Association of Freight
Forwarders (Saaff), told FTW
that, in general, he concurred
with Keen’s comments. These
include the complaints about the
growing number of surcharges,
those that are rather inexplicit,
and the problems arising for
Saaff members from customers’
perceptions of these often
unexplained extra charges.
However, Logan said that
Saaff raised no objection where
there was a genuine reason for
a surcharge. “A port congestion
surcharge for example,” he added.
“That is, in circumstances that are
out of the shipping lines’ control, I
would say that this is justifiable.”