THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY

[PAKI 111—SB_\ 41

SCHEDULE

Case No.TAMP/75/2001-JNPT

The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT)

Applicant

O R D E R

(Passed on this 19th day of February 2002)

This case relates to the proposal received from the Jawaharlaf Nehru Port Trust

(JNPT) for fixation of charges for inter-terminal handling of transhipment containers at the container

terminal of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) and the Nhava Stieva International Container

Terminal Limited (NSICT).

2.1.

This Authority had earlier (July 99) received a representation from M/s. Shrey^s

Shipping Limited (SSL) stating that the transhipment cost for containers arriving either at the JNPT or

at the NSICT but loaded at the other terminals was double the existing rates as the NSICT and JNPT

were treated as separate entities for charging the rate applicable for transhipment.

2.2.

The representation of the SSL was processed as per the procedure adopted. At the

joint hearing relating to that case, it was decided that the SSL would give the agreed text describing

interim arrangement installed. The SSL had detailed the following procedures as an interim

arrangement currently in operation:

(i).

Transhipment containers would be unloaded in a separate yard and subsequently

'house kept' for concerned mainline vessel.

(ii).

Transhipment containers received from mainline vessels to be feedered to other

neighbouring ports would be loaded on the feeder vessel.

(in).

After finishing the operations, the feeder vessel would shift to the other Terminal to

continue the same operations.

(rv).

Transhipment containers would be loaded on mainline vessel depending upon the

mainline vessel operators' request.

(v).

Port would charge the composite transhipment charges, as notified to main shipping

line.

The detailed procedure of the interim arrangement submitted by the SSL was

forwarded to the NSICT and the JNPT for their comments.

,? 3.

The Authority had considered the representation and passed an Order on 19 July

2000 approving the procedure in operation at the JNPT and the NSICT for movement of transhipment

of containers. Based on the suggestion made by the JNPT, it was also decided that the existing

practice would continue till any operational problem arose requiring further intervention in the matter

by this Authority.

3.1.

In its present proposal, the JNPT has made the following points:

(i).

In response to the representation from M/s. Shreyas Shipping Limited for deciding the

inter terminal charges for transhipment containers, the TAMP vide its order No.

TAMP/69/99-JNPT dated 20 May 2000 has stated that the charges towards mter-

terminal handling of transhipment containers may be worked out by the concerned

terminals after arriving the consensus with the users operating at respective

terminals. (In facMhis Authority did not pass any Order in this regard on 20 May 2000

as mentioned by the JNPT. The Order was passed by this Authority on 19 July 2000

which was notified in the Gazette on 8 August 2000. In this Order, this Authority did

not require the JNPT or the NSICT to work out a consensus proposal for mter-

terminal transfer charges for transhipment containers).

(ii).

Efforts were made to have a dialogue with Shipping Lines and common working

procedure has been arrived by the two terminals i.e., JNPT & NSICT* This procedure

has been agreed to by the CSLA & MANSA.

.,,-•••

(ni).

The following procedure and proposed charges are submitted for approval:

(A).

Handling of Transhipment (TP) containers:

(a).

TP container discharged at the JNPT and ,b,ound to be loaded at the

NSICT shall be transported by the JNP TTis and the JNP RTGCs will

discharge these containers in the NSICT yard of 4G.

,,.' i --

(b).

Similarly, TP container discharged at the NStGT<->and bound to be

loaded at the JNPT shall be discharged by the NSICT by using its

RTGCs and TTs in CY31 of the JNPT.

(B).

Charges for handling of TP Containers:

(a).

If a container is discharged by the JNPT and loaded by the NSICT at

its terminal, in that case the charges will be as under:

50% of JNP TP handling charges as per JNPT Tariff shall be

charged to the Line by the JNPT.

1 ^{1 .}

For the same container the NSICT shall charge 50% of TP

handling charges as per its Tariff + Rs.1300/-(for 20') or, Rs.

1950/- (for 40') to its Line.

(b).

If a container is discharged by the NSICT and loaded by the JNPT at

its terminal, the charges will be as under:

The NSICT shall charge 50% of handling charges to the line

as per its Tariff.

For the same container the JNPT shall charge 50% of TP

handling charges as per the Tariff + Rs. 13Q0/-(for 20') or Rs.

I950/-(for40')tothe Line.

(c).

NSICT will be additionally charging the Lines an amount equivalent to

royalty paid to JNPT as per the licensee agreement i.e., Rs. 52/- per

TEU till 2

July 2001 and Rs. 153/- per TEU from 3rd July 2002.

(d).

The above procedure shall come into force, on trial basis for a period

of two years with effect form 20 April 2001 to 14 April 2003 and shall

be reviewed after six months.

3.2.

The JNPT has given the following justifications for the proposed additional charge of

Rs1300/- (for 20' containers) and Rs 1950 (for 40' containers):

(i).

The transhipment containers meant for both the terminals will be stored in separate

yard having common yard facility.

(ii).

Lift on, transportation and lift off are being done by the respective terminals by

deploying their handling equipments.

(iii).

The break-up of Rs. 1300/- is, lift on-Rs. 400/-; transportation - Rs.50QA; and, lift off -

-Rs.400/-.

(iv).

The component of Rs. 400/- is taken from the existing scale of rates of JNPT for lift

on / lift off activity [Schedule-II; Section-1; I .(iv)] of the scale of rates.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; EXTRAORDINARY

IPARTIII—SEC. 41

(v).

The component of Rs.500/- towards transportation is derived considering the cost of

transporting the containers with the help of terminal tractor trailers and on the basis of

Scale of Rates under Scheduie-n, Section-]; 7.(i), which specifies that Rs.1700/- per

TEU will be charged for "shifting of containers within the terminal for custom

examination or for any other purpose and subsequent loading of container for

delivery" Thus, in this operations lift on, lift off and lift on components are involved.

Therefore, if Rs.12007- towards lift on, lift off & lift on are deducted from Rs.1700/-, a

balance of Rs.500/- is left for transportation. Taking into account these, charge of Rs.

1300/- towards housekeeping as proposed Is Justified and already available in Scale

ofRatesofJNPT.

(vl).

The proposed additional charge of Rs.1300/- has been accepted by the CSLA &

MANSA.

(vii).

The main intention through this working procedure is to attract more transhipment

cargo and to develop the JNPT as main transhipment hub on the west coast.

3.3.

The JNPT has also stated that the working procedure of the proposed charges has

already been made effective from 20 April 2001. It has admitted that there was, however, some

procedural delay in sending the proposal to this Authority. The JNPT has, therefore, requested that

the Authority to accord approval for the working procedure and proposed charges for inter-terminal

transhipment containers between the JNPT and the NSICT with effect from 20 April 2001.

The JNPT was requested to explain the circumstances warranting revision of the

procedure already prescribed by this Authority in its Order dated 19 July 2000. The comments in this

regard received from the JNPT are summarised below:

(i).

The procedure prescribed was an internal arrangement on the basis of a request

made by M/s. Shreyas Shipping Limited who are operating the services for

transhipment containers. Subsequently, there are other main line operators who also

started transhipment from the JNPT and the NSICT which necessitates revision of the

earlier procedure.

(ii).

Other Shipping Lines who operate main line vessels, have shown interest to have

transhipment of containers separately from both the terminals i.e. JNPT & NSICT.

They have requested the Port to have common procedure for transhipment to avoid

calling of vessels at both the terminals separately which takes more time. Moreover,

the Lines have opined that such transhipment containers to be handled by both the

terminals require separate yard and equipment so as to have smooth and faster turn

around of vessels with least cost.

(iii).

It was, therefore, decided with consensus of the CSLA & MANSA that a revised

procedure be followed. Accordingly, a composite inter terminal handling charges

have been fixed.

(iv).

The new procedure has avoided the delay in connecting transhipment containers

which was hitherto be carried out by shifting of vessels from one terminal to other

terminal or to treat the containers separately as import and export and charge the

Shipping Lines accordingly.

This was causing more cost for Shipping Lines for

connecting TP containers from respective terminals. The revised procedure which

has come Into force from 28.4.2001 has given good results and the shipping Lines

who are operating are also satisfied with this procedure and in agreement with

payment of composite charges as indicated in the revised procedure.

The proposal of the JNPT was initially circulated to the Nhava Sheva International

Container Terminal Limited (NSICT), M/s. Shreyas Shipping Limited, Indian National Shipowners'

Association (INSA), and Shipping Corporation of India Limited (SCI). The proposal was initially not

circulated to MANSA and CSLA as the comments of these organisations were forwarded by the JNPT

along with its proposal. The Comments received are summarised below:

Container Shipping Llnei Aaaoolatlon (CSLA1

(i).

The Lines are entirely supportive of the fact that a mechanism has been arrived at to

facilitate this movement and endorse the proposal of the JNPT.

(ii).

While the transhipment rates appear cheaper than some adjacent ports, there is

further scope to provide mort competitive rates as some cost elements notably

royalty appear to have been double counted.

Mlumbal and Nhava-She va Ship Agent*' Aifoclatlon, (MANSA.)

(I).

It welcome- agreement between the two terminals and also agrees with the tariff

proposed.

Shipping Corporation of ln.o"ia Lin,,t-,J.<£Q.t)

(i).

The proposal submitted by the JI ( ⁿ ir. agreed to in principle. We trust that the

NSICT will also concur in the proposal ;.„ ,!-r» ittai.

• vo^es both the terminals.

(ii).

Since this will Involve additional cost to the Lines and as th»; *r« land-side costs, the

Lines will have to recover these additional costs from the Trade. Similar arrangement

exists In the port of Colombo also. But there the Inter Terminal Transfer (ITT) is

either arranged by the terminal or if the Lines carry out the ITT, the Lines get rebate

for due amount. We, therefore, feel that the concerned terminals shall bear the cost

of ITT between themselves.

(iii).

In addition to ITT charges, the NSICT terminal will also be charging Royalty at the

rate of Rs.52 per TEU till 2 July 2001. The amount of royalty of Rs.153 per TEU is

stated to start from 3 July 2002. This appears to be a typographical error. The

charge of Rs.153 per TEU may be applicable from 3 July 2001 and not 2002.

(Iv).

The amount of Royalty may not remain the same after 3 July 2001 and It will keep on

increasing as per the agreement between the JNPT and the NSICT. If it is so, then,

this amount Is likely to go up to around Rs. 7000 in the 30th year.

M/». Shrevas Shipping limited

(I).

Inter-terminal movement of container is a part of the overall transhipment operation

carried by a Port and assigning an additional cost which is approximately 30% of the

tariff for transhipment Is a very stiff proposition and will put the Jawaharlal Nehru Port

at a disadvantage for attracting transhipment traffic out of Indian Ports if the two

vessels are not calling at the same terminal.

(ii).

The CSLA and the MANSA have endorsed this proposal. As one of the only two

operators whose ships carry 100% transhipment containers only, It Is our experience

that no Line Is willing to bear any additional inter - terminal cost for containers brought

In the JNPT as Imports Into or export out of the country.

(ill).

The Lines while choosing a feeder service to a particular hub port give substantial

welghtage to the total transhipment cost Incurred by them at a port. In such case, for

a vessel having a through put of more than 400 TEU, the only option is either call

both terminals which have been found to be not a practical solution due to various

operational constraints or deploy two separate vessels dedicated to one terminal.

(iv).

Unless the JNPT successfully demonstrates its role of having successfully fulfilled

transhipment requirement of traffic from ports in India, it will not be able to stake its

claim for its capability of holding a status of an International transhipment hub.

THE GAZETTE OF fisfblA : EXTRAORDINARY

IPARTHI—SEC. 41

(v).

Major cost 6lem|hfhas,already been considered and together with the fact that the

traffic is on the rise/There is, therefore, no justification for seeking additional revenue

up to 30% of the total norr^a^harg^for^r^irig^pperafc^g, the cost of which to a

large extent has already ^eh^cccrnmodaTecf wwirtCTeasmg the Scale of Rates of

both the terminals. . ,, . ,b, ^

irj^{^ ,}! o q q i j P^{^ ,}n 9

£t!S e o r^.

(vi).

Inter terminal trucking operations does not really put a'dditfonal monetary burden for

the two terminals and,mM§t,,tf\.ereIore^.j3,e^gp,t,Bjt; the minimum level to allow users

make use of this facility,

„

' ,^ ,,,

While forwarding a copy of the "proposal for its comments, the NSICT was also

requested to specifically clarify the reasons for proposing to levy separately an amount eauivalent to

royalty payable to the JNPT, when the tariff itself hras been fixed after considering royalty payment as

a cost element. The reply received from the NSICT, is summarised below:

(i).

Before introducing the working procedure, the NSICT and the JNPT were handling

the containers which were discharged.at one terminal and loaded from other terminal

after necessary shifting was cafried out by the Shipping Lines/terminals.

(ii).

The Authority publishes tariff for each individual terminal separately and not for two

terminals together. The charges as per approved tariff, which are arrived at after

considering the royalty costs for handling the box, were as under:

At JNPT Terminal for 20 ft box

At NSICT Terminal for 20 ft box

Shifting charges for internal terminal

Transfer

Total Handling costs

20 ft box

Rs. 3,000

Rs.3,480

~^r"¹

Rs. 1,700

Rs. 8,180

40 ft box

Rs. 4,500

Rs. 5,220

Rs,2,550

Rs.12,270

(in).

The cost, based on the notified tariff, was not found viable by the Lines, when they

required to discharge at one Le:i.iinal and ic-id from another. Thus, a representation

was made to the JNPT and the' NSICT ic arrive at some working arrangement at

reduced costs.

(iv).

Based on the discussions with JNPT and to accommodate the requests of the trade,

the NSICT has indicated that it can consider handling the container at half the tariff

provided the JNPT agrees to waive the royalty payment for this activity which is in

interest of the Port and the Trade. Since it was not possible for JNPT to alter the

terms of Licence agreement, it was decided to agree on the proposed working

procedure with approval of CSLA and MANSA, provided they were ready to accept

the royalty element as part of the subsidised tariff.

(v).

Based on above proposal the revised tariff for the box is as under:

At JNPT Terminal for 20 ft box (1/2

rate)

At NSICT Terminal for 20 ft box (1/2

rate}_

Royalty recovery

Shifting charges for internal v

•: •-•

Transfer

Total Handling costs

Cost Saving s to Lines

20 ft box

Rs. 1,500

Rs.1,740

•~

Rs 15?

Rs,

1,3-JC

Rs. 4,693

Rs. 3,487

40 ft box

Rs. 2,250

Rs. 2,610

Rs.306

Rs.7.116

Rs. 5,654

It may be noted that the tariff for transhipment is actually 50% of the local tariffs and

they are further discounted to the tune of 20% based on volumes. This makes

transhipment rates very unattractive to the terminal operator.

(vi).

The mutually agreed tariff is much less than the tariff approved by the TAMP and

there is no question of double counting the costs. Since the tariff charged to the

Lines is much lower than the TAMP approved tariff, there is no need to have the

hearing on the matter.

(vii).

The NSICT has gone out of its way to try and accommodate the requests of the

Lines, keeping in mind the overall benefit to the Trade, The calculations above show,

these adjustments have been made at a considerable pecuniary loss to NSICT. It,

however, appears that the Lines are still not satisfied with the proposal and, therefore,

we will withdraw this proposal and continue accepting such traffic at the original

notified tariff as shown in (ii) above.

The proposal of the JNPT was not initially circulated to Bombay Chamber of

Commerce and Industry (BCCI) and Indian Merchant Chamber (IMC) earlier as they were not

consulted when the original representation of M/s. Shreyas Shipping Limited relating to transhipment

charges for containers arriving at JNPT and the NSICT was considered. M/s. Shreyas Shipping

Limited have now informed that M/s. Shahi Shipping Limited are also engaged in carriage of

transhipment container. It was, therefore, decided to consult BCCI, IMC and M/s. Shahi Shipping

Limited also. A copy of the proposal of the JNPT was forwarded to BCCI, IMC and M/s. Shahi

Shipping Limited on 27 September 2001 for comments. Their Comments have not been received.

A joint hearing in this case was held on 12 October 2001 at the office of the JNPT in

Mumbai. At the joint hearing, the following submissions were made:

The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT)

(i).

In the earlier arrangement there was no ITT.

(ii).

Transhipment vessels had to shift from the JNPT to the NSICT by paying necessary

shifting charges.

(iii).

MLOs have started bringing transhipment containers in big vessels.

The earlier

system of berthing at the centre was not convenient. Formal shifting was necessary.

(iv).

Only 50% of tariff is proposed and, therefore, there is a saving in this,

(v).

There is a saving in shifting charge also as indicated by the NSICT.

(vi).

The rate for ITT works out to Rs.1700/-. We have deliberately reduced to Rs.1,300/-

to help the transhippers.

M/s. Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal Limited (NSICT)

(i).

Transportation charge is a notified charge. It is, therefore, not a new item.

(ii).

Shifting charge is not a notified item. But, we are required to do a lot of work. The

charge is reasonable and, therefore, justified.

(iii).

Royalty is being charged exactly as per the concession agreement.

(iv).

M/s. Shreyas Shipping Limited are bringing two separate

vessels - one for each

terminal. Let them continue to do so.

(v).

If the ITT arrangement as proposed cannot be accepted then the NSICT will not like

to get involved in ITT at all.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

(PARTHI-^SEC.4]

(vi).

M/s. Shreyas Shipping Limited brings containers from the KandlaPort. They have a

contract at Kandla to carry a box and deliver it at a particular terminal. It Is their

contractual obligation. For their own convenience and planning benefit, they want the

Terminal to adjust. They have to wait for berths to be available. They want to cut

short and save costs and reduce the turn around time at our cost.

(vii).

We may have 100 boxes for the JNPT and 200 boxes for the NSICT and 200 boxes

from the JNPT and 100 boxes from the NSICT. This can not be done easily. We

have to shuttle back and forth, which is very expensive. Hence, the emphasis on ITT.

(viii).

The 50% concession given has not attracted traffic.

The Mumbai and Nhava-Sheva Ship Agents' Association (MANSA)

(i).

The ITT system is beneficial to all. Why can not Transhipment Lines agree?

(ii).

In ITT, extra movement is involved and hence the extra transportation cost (one

horizontal and one lifting extra will be there).

(iii).

The shifting charges are paid by the Lines. Why are transhippers upset? They have

no locus standi.

The Container Shipping Lines Association (India) fCSLAI

We endorse the views expressed by the MANSA.

M/s. Shrevas Shipping Limited

(i).

They say that the charge proposed is for the benefit of transhippers. This is not

evident.

(ii).

The NSICT says that weekly growth of ITT cases is 22 containers.

If properly

encouraged this traffic can grow more.

(iii).

The Government says that everything must be done to develop the JNPT as a 'hub'.

How can they now say that transhippers are not concerned?

(iv).

Lines pay shifting charge which is not correct. Lines refuse to bear the burden.

(v).

The TAMP recently allowed concession to vessels of a particular size calling at the

TPT. Please do so here also to encourage transhipment containers.

(vi).

If this can not be done, we will have to shift to some ports in the Middle East.

With reference to the totality of information collected during the processing of this

case, and bearing in mind the arguments advanced at the joint hearing, the following position

emerges:

(i).

The earlier procedure of shifting of vessels between the two terminals, viz. the JNPT

and the NSICT, to discharge / load transhipment containers was approved by this

Authority keeping in mind the fact that it was then in operation for more than a year at

both the terminals. Since, it was recognised that the procedure adopted might not be

a permanent solution, the earlier Order had clearly indicated that the procedure would

continue only till any operational problem arose. The JNPT has now brought out the

need to review the earlier procedure for movement of transhipment containers. It has

been pointed out that the Shipping Lines prefer to avoid shifting of vessels between

the terminals and also like to have a separate yard for storage of transhipment

containers so as to shorten the turn around time of vessels.

It has also been

highlighted that the earlier procedure followed resulted in higher cost of handling

transhipment containers to the Lines (perhaps, due to payment of shifting charges)

when compared with the procedure suggested now.

It is noteworthy that the

procedure suggested now has already been put into operation by the JNPT since

April 2001. It has been reported that the procedure in operation has produced the

desired results; and, the Lines are also satisfied with the procedure adopted. In this

backdrop, this Authority does not have any reservation to endorse the revised

procedure for inter terminal handling of transhipment containers at the JNPT and the

NSICT.

(ii).

In the revised procedure adopted, there is no shifting of vessels between the

terminals. It envisages storage of tianshipment containers landed in a designated

yard "by one terminal and to be handled by the other terminal with its equipment in the

loading cycle.

Even though shifting of vessel is avoided, extra movement of

containers in the yard, as explained by both the JNPT and the NSICT, has become

inevitable in the revised procedure.

In this context, the terminal operators have

sought an additional tariff to cover the cost incurred towards extra movement of

containers.

(iii).

The CSLA and the MANSAA have fully endorsed the proposal. The SCI and the SSL

have opposed the proposed inter terminal transfer charge. Both the SCI and the SSL

have argued that the inter-terminal transfer cost must be borne by the concerned

terminals. The logic of this argument is not discernible. It has clearly emerged that,

in such cases, the terminals have to undertake extra lift-on, transportation and lift-off

activities. The existing composite rates for handling transhipment containers were

fixed with reference to the activities involved in handling them within the same

terminal.

At that time, the scenario of handling transhipment containers at one

terminal in the landing cycle and at the other in the loading cycle was not envisaged;

and, hence, the composite rate was not computed by including the cost of additional

movements of containers arising in such a situation. That being so, it cannot be said

to be unreasonable for the terminal operators to seek recovery of additional tariffs to

cover the cost of additional movements involved. As correctly pointed out by the

NSICT, the procedure adopted now provides benefit to the Lines which otherwise

would have waited for berths to be available at one terminal considering the fact that

it is a contractual obligation for the Lines to deliver the containers at a particular

terminal. This revised procedure, as again pointed out by the NSICT, will reduce the

turn around time of vessels and thereby result in cost saving to the Lines. When the

Lines will reap the benefit of the procedure adopted by both the terminals, it is not

reasonable for them to expect the terminal operators to provide additional services

required to achieve the benefits free of cost.

The point made by the SSL about a concession allowed by this Authority for mainline

vessels calling at the Tuticorin Port Trust (TPT) is not relevant in the context of the

transhipment containers handling under consideration in this case. In any case, the

concession allowed at the TPT is subject to a minimum throughput condition which is

protected by a bank guarantee arrangement prescribed. In the instant case, there is

no minimum throughput assurance sought from the Lines.

(Iv).

The proposal envisages levy of 50% of the transhipment container handling charges

as per the notified rate by each of the terminal and an additional charge for extra

movement of such containers by the terminal performing the activities in the loading

cycle. There cannot be any objection to the terminals levying 50% of the applicable

notified composite rate for handling transhipment containers, as services to that

extent are provided by them. This Authority is, therefore, inclined to approve this

component of the tariff proposed.

(v).

As has already been mentioned, in the procedure adopted now, there are additional

movements involved. These additional movements appear to be required for shifting

the transhipment containers stored in the designated yard after landing, for vessel-

wise stacking in the loading cycle. The additional handling is indicated as one lift-on,

transportation, and one lift-off operations. Even though there are no separate rates

prescribed for individual components of container handling activities in the Scales of

Rates of both the JNPT and the NSICT, the JNPT has attempted to derive such rates

from the approved rates. The methodology adopted by the JNPT is found to be

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY

[PART III—Sir. 4]

reasonable. The rates for additional movements, derived from the existing tariffs,

work out to Rs.130u/~ (for 20' containers) and Rs. 1950/- (for 40' containers) in the

case ot fr ³ JNPT. This Authority, therefore, approves these rates for the JNPT as

proposed.

(vl).

In the case of the NSICT, the proposal envisages recovery of an amount equivalent

to the royalty payable by it to the JNPT in addition to levy of charges for the additional

movements / operations. It is noteworthy that the charges for additional movements /

operations proposed for the NSICT are the same as those proposed for the JNPT. It

may be relevant here to recall that the Scales of Rates approve^ for the JNPT and

the NSICT are different. In November 2000, this Authority approved a 16% increase

in tariffs for the NSICT.

The revised tariffs were approved duly taking into

consideration the royalty payable by the NSICT to the JNPT in the tariff computation.

That being so, this Authority cannot subscribe to the procedure sought to be adopted

by the NSICT of recovering royalty payable as actuals, which, if allowed, will be

nothing but double counting.

As mentioned earlier, the proposed charges for the additional movements involved

are derived from the Scale of Rates of the JNPT; and, the NSICT's Rates for

container handling are 16% higher than those at the JNPT.

Applying the

methodology followed by the JNPT for deriving the proposed charges, in the NSICT

case the charges for lift on / off will be Rs. 464/- (for 20' container). Since the rate for

shifting of containers within the terminal has not been revised in the case of the

NSICT at the time of November 2000 revision, it still continues to be at the same level

as that of the JNPT. It is, therefore, reasonable to consider a tariff of Rs. 500/- for

transportation in the case of the NSICT also. Thus, the tariff for additional movement

in the case of the NSICT works out to Rs. 1428/- (for 20' container) and Rs. 2142/-

(for 40' container). That being so, this Authority decides to disallow the proposal of

the NSICT levying an amount equivalent to the royalty payable as actuals and instead

approves revised inter terminal transfer charge of Rs. 1428/- (for 20' container) and

Rs.2142/- (for 40' container) in the case of the NSICT.

The revised rate approved for the NSICT is higher than that of the JNPT. It is to be

recognised that the rate fixed by this Authority is only a 'ceiling' in the case of Private

Terminal Operators. That being so, the NSICT has the option to operate the revised

rate approved at the level of the JNPT rates, if it decides to do so for commercial

reasons.

(vii).

The JNPT has introduced the revised procedure from 20 April 2001 and, accordingly,

has sought approval of the proposed charges with retrospective effect. The JNPT

has also explained that it had only introduced the revised procedure but withheld

billing for such services rendered at the proposed rates till a formal approval is

accorded by this Authority. It is commendable that the JNPT has (commendably)

changed its earlier approach of introducing new tariff arrangements through trade

notices and instead chosen to fall in line with the tariff setting arrangement envisaged

in the Statute.

None of the users, excepting the SCI and the SSL, who have in fact

objected to the introduction of a separate inter terminal transfer charge, has raised

any objection about introducing the revised procedure and the tariff arrangement with

retrospective effect. Be that as- it may, the earlier procedure of shifting of vessels has

been discontinued with the introduction of the revised procedure thereby resulting in a

direct saving of shifting charges payable by the Lines. That being so, this Authority is

inclined to approve the revised procedure and the charges for inter terminal transfer

of transhipment containers between the JNPT and the NSICT with retrospective

effect from 20 April 2001.

10.1.

In the result, and th for the reasons given above, and based on a collective

application of mind, this Authority approves the following procedure and charges for inter terminal

transfer of transhipment containers between the JNPT and the NSICT:

(i).

Procedure for handling transhipment (TP) containers:

(a).

TP containers discharged at the JNPT and bound to be loaded at the NSICT

will be transported by the JNP TTs; and, the JNP RTGCs will discharge these

containers in the NSICT yard of 4G.

(b).

Similarly, TP containers discharged at the NSICT and bound to be loaded at

the JNPT will be discharged by the NSICT by using its RTGCs and TTs in

CY31 of the JNPT.

(ii).

Charges for •, "idling TP Containers:

(a).

If a containei is discharged by the JNPT and loaded by the NSICT at its

terminal, the charger- w,!¹ 'oe zs under:

50% of transhipment r,ontanr- handling charges as per the JNPT

Scale of Rates will be charged to tne L, • hv the JNPT.

For the same container the NSICT will onarge 50% of the

transhipment container handling charges as per its Scale of Rates

and, in addition, also levy a charge of Rs.1428/- (for 20') or Rs. 2142/-

(for 40') towards inter-terminal transfer.

(b).

If a container is discharged by the NSICT and loaded by the JNPT at its

terminal, the charges will be as under:

The NSICT will charge 50% of transhipment container handling

charges to the Line as per its Scale of Rates.

For the same container the JNPT will charge 50% of TP handling

charges as per its Scale of Rates; and, in addition, also levy a charge

of Rs. 1300/- (for 20') or Rs. 1950/- (for 40') towards inter-terminal

transfer.

10.2.

This Authority also approves the procedure and charges mentioned at paragraph

10.1 above with retrospective effect from 20 April 2001.

10.3.

The JNPT and the NSICT are directed to include these provisions accordingly in their

Scale of Rates.

S, SATHYAM, Chairman

[ADVT/ffl/rV/143/2001/E\1y.]

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press. Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications. Delhi-110054.