A call to ‘name and shame’ those who misdeclare container weights has drawn mixed response from the industry. It’s an idea mooted in the UK freight trade press calling for box lines and port operators to publicly name the excessive overweight offenders – with the expectation that this will cure the problem. The freight industry is utterly dependent on the honesty of the shippers – and their associated container packers/operators/forwarders. The weights declared by shippers on the shipping instruction (SI) and the bill of lading (BoL) are the only indications of just how much a container should weigh. But that’s not a very certain document. As a recent report by the UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) said: “Only in container shipping is the weight of the cargo unknown. “This because many shippers either don’t have the facilities to weigh containers before shipment, or because they’re discouraged from doing so by factors such as import taxes, loading restrictions, and rail and road weight restrictions.” So they leave lots of room for errors – either deliberate, or more likely miscalculation error. But this “unknown” quantity has not always been the case in SA. A shipping line executive pointed out to FTW that there used to be weighbridges at each of the ports around the coast, intended to weigh all the trucks and container loads before they entered the terminals. Indeed, about seven years ago, the grand new weighbridge facility intended for the Durban container terminal (DCT) on the Bayhead Road access was big news in FTW. But that, along with all the other port weighbridges, has – like many of the other great government ideas – just faded into oblivion. But it’s not an idea that has faded out of the minds of those in the shipping line and trucking industries who are the ultimate victims of misdeclaration of container weights. Alex de Bruyn, Safmarine SA trades executive, told FTW that he saw the weighbridge idea as one of the possible solutions. He suggested introducing measures in ports – similar to those in North America – which allow shipping lines to identify overweight containers before they go into the stack. “This could be done by having weighbridges at the port terminals,” he added, “and doing ‘spot checking’ of containers as they arrive at the port.” He also saw it as a means of providing adequate deterrents. “It would allow us to apply surcharges or penalties relevant to the weight variance, and/or to refuse to transport the overloaded container until corrective action was taken. “And this physical check would make those who are – intentionally or unintentionally – overloading containers more aware of the dangers and consequences of their actions.” Kevin Martin, MD of container trucking concern Freightliner and vicechairman of the Durban harbour carriers’ section of the SA Association of Freight Forwarders (Saaff), was another who supported the need for weighbridges if misdeclaration of container weights was to be beaten. “The shipping lines have in the past threatened to raise extra fees when cases have been discovered,” he told FTW. “Unfortunately, this is at present rather a toothless threat as suspecting is one thing – but only an assize weighbridge ‘ticket’ is definitive proof.” However, Martin sees a way to use the modern equipment now being used in the SA container terminals to help turn suspicion into proof. The present modern stacking machines at the terminals do have “weighing heads” that give an indication of mass – although it’s not a legal proof. The way that this would work is that, on entry into the terminal of the container, the declared mass by the loading point is entered in the terminal system. “When the stacking machine lifts the container off of the road/rail vehicle, a comparison should be made between this ‘declared mass’ and that ‘weighing head mass – with a margin of error for both under- and over-mass. “And, if this is found to be outside of the parameters, the container is staged for later movement to an assize weighbridge – situated inside the terminal, run by SA Revenue Service (Sars).” Then – once the correct legal mass has been ascertained, a charge would be raised by Transnet on the shipping line. The line, in turn, would bill the client – the guilty party – along with any subsequent costs that might have arisen. “This,” said Martin, “would then satisfy both Transnet’s need for compensation for assuming this responsibility, and the shipping line’s need for reimbursement.” And the port authorities are anything but rejecting the idea. TPT is currently working on a plan to be able to introduce this vital crosscheck of actual container mass against declared mass. Spokesperson Lunga Ngcobo said that the port’s electronics fundis were currently very busy tweaking all the appropriate connections to switch the port’s previous Cosmos computer system over to the new state-of-the-art Navis system. Also, she added, this cross-check of declared container mass and actual container mass is still very much part of the engineers’ work on the new system. And Transnet is not doing it for the good of its soul. The spin-off is for Sars, in that it will assist them in their targeting and help to prevent customs fraud – especially where shippers deliberately under-declare the mass of containers so that they are eligible for rebates.
