Hugo Zanelli D/B/A Hugo Zanelli & Company v. The Federal Maritime Commission

Fifth Circuit

Hugo Zanelli D/B/A Hugo Zanelli & Company v. The Federal Maritime Commission

524 F.2d 1000, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11470, 1976 A.M.C. 65

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1975

Docket75-1550

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 524 F.2d 1000 (Hugo Zanelli D/B/A Hugo Zanelli & Company v. The Federal Maritime Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hugo Zanelli D/B/A Hugo Zanelli & Company v. The Federal Maritime Commission, 524 F.2d 1000, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11470, 1976 A.M.C. 65 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We agree with the decision and order of the Federal Maritime Commission, 1 that appellant, who is licensed as an independent ocean freight forwarder, cannot hold such a license if he acts as shipper, agent for a consignee, seller, financier, or has obtained a beneficial *1001 interest in the goods shipped. See 46 U.S.C. 801, 841b; 46 C.F.R. 510.21(1); and prior decisions of the Commission cited in the ALJ’s decision. Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. FMC, 497 F.2d 1053 (C.A.8, 1974), is not to the contrary, and indeed appellant does not contend that it is. It involved a forwarder’s relationship to ITC, an interlocking company that performed services for shippers but acquired no beneficial interest in shipments.

The decision and order of the Commission are affirmed.

1

. 14 Shipping Regulatory Reports, (Pike & Fisher) 1256, adopting the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, a résumé of which is reported at p. 835 of the same volume.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

We agree with the decision and order of the Federal Maritime Commission, 1 that appellant, who is licensed as an independent ocean freight forwarder, cannot hold such a license if he acts as shipper, agent for a consignee, seller, financier, or has obtained a beneficial *1001 interest in the goods shipped. See 46 U.S.C. 801, 841b; 46 C.F.R. 510.21(1); and prior decisions of the Commission cited in the ALJ’s decision. Norman G. Jensen, Inc. v. FMC, 497 F.2d 1053 (C.A.8, 1974), is not to the contrary, and indeed appellant does not contend that it is. It involved a forwarder’s relationship to ITC, an interlocking company that performed services for shippers but acquired no beneficial interest in shipments.

The decision and order of the Commission are affirmed.

1

. 14 Shipping Regulatory Reports, (Pike & Fisher) 1256, adopting the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, a résumé of which is reported at p. 835 of the same volume.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 F.2d 1000, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11470, 1976 A.M.C. 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hugo-zanelli-dba-hugo-zanelli-company-v-the-federal-maritime-ca5-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack