CMA CGM has launched a forceful defense against Samsung Electronics’ $186 million complaint filed with the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), asking regulators to dismiss the case while rejecting allegations that it systematically violated the Shipping Act.
In a verified answer filed with the FMC this week, the French container carrier challenged Samsung’s account of service problems during the Covid-19 pandemic. CMA CGM described the complaint as a “misguided campaign” aimed at shifting responsibility onto the carrier as well as other ocean lines for what it says were Samsung’s own logistical shortcomings.
“When the dust settles it will become abundantly clear that Samsung’s revenues during the relevant timeframe increased massively, that it profited handsomely from supplying its products to the American consumer during the Covid 19 pandemic, but that it was unprepared for the substantial growth and lacked the capabilities to handle and receive the increased volumes it elected to import,” CMA CGM asserted.
According to the carrier, those shortcomings were responsible for the losses Samsung alleges in its complaint.
“Neither the Shipping Act nor the relevant contractual provisions allow Samsung to shift responsibility in this manner,” CMA CGM added.
At the center of the dispute is Samsung’s allegation that CMA CGM failed to meet its inland drayage and rail obligations under “store door” through bills of lading. Samsung claims those failures unfairly left it responsible for millions of dollars in demurrage, detention and rail storage charges.
CMA CGM countered that some of Samsung’s claims are barred by the terms of a separate settlement agreement reached by the two companies in 2023.
The carrier also argued that some of the damages Samsung is seeking are “improper on their face.” Among the examples cited was the cost of using off-dock container yard space.
“While off-dock storage is generally less expensive than on-dock storage, the only plausible explanation as to why a consignee or receiver of cargo would need to choose between the two forms of storage is if it was unable or unwilling to take delivery of the cargo,” CMA CGM stated.
The carrier further criticized what it characterized as a lack of detail in Samsung’s complaint. CMA CGM noted that Samsung had not identified specific container numbers in connection with several of the alleged violations, which it said made it difficult to properly investigate the claims.
“To further illustrate the difficulty, CMA CGM has identified instances in which the same container was used for different shipments consigned” to Samsung, the carrier noted.
CMA CGM’s response now sets the stage for what could become an extended legal dispute between the two companies before the FMC.
According to an agency filing, an initial decision from an administrative law judge is expected by September 2027, followed by a final FMC determination anticipated in March 2028.
