The Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 was signed into law on 16 June. By mid-September, the Federal Maritime Commission had opened a broad slate of investigations and enforcement actions against the major ocean carriers covering detention and demurrage billing, unreasonable accessorial fees, chassis charges, peak season surcharges, and the general rate increase practices that defined the 2021 and 2022 freight cycle. Commissioner Dan Maffei has been on the record all summer that the FMC will use every tool OSRA gave it, and the interpretive rule at 46 CFR 545.5 is now the document every importer should have on their desk.
If you imported chemicals from China in 2021 or 2022, you almost certainly paid carrier charges that were either billed incorrectly under existing rules or will now be rebillable as unreasonable under OSRA. The charges at issue aren’t marginal. For a single 20-foot ISO tank transiting Long Beach or Savannah during Q3 2021, $800 to $2,400 in demurrage was routine, another $300 to $900 in detention was common, and chassis split-bill charges running $150 to $350 per box per week appeared on invoices that nobody audited because everyone was just trying to get product out of the port.
That money is recoverable. The statute of limitations on charge complaints under the Shipping Act runs three years from the date of violation, so 2021 invoices are squarely in scope through 2024. Here is the audit framework, what to look for, how to document it, and how to actually file a formal complaint if your carrier refuses to refund.
What OSRA 2022 Actually Changed and Why the FMC Has Real Teeth Now
The Ocean Shipping Reform Act, Public Law 117-146, took what had been a mostly advisory FMC posture and turned it into an enforcement agency with specific authorities. Three changes matter most to chemical importers.
First, the burden of proof on demurrage and detention charges now sits with the carrier, not the shipper. If a carrier bills you demurrage for containers sitting at Long Beach during the October 2021 peak congestion, and you dispute the charge on the grounds that the port was closed to you by factors outside your control, the carrier now has to prove the charge was reasonable. Before OSRA, you had to prove it wasn’t. That inversion is load-bearing for every pending dispute you have on file.
Second, OSRA explicitly requires that detention and demurrage charges serve an incentive function, meaning they must actually incentivise the return of equipment or the movement of cargo. If a container can’t be returned because the carrier’s own empty-return appointment system is fully booked for two weeks, charging detention during those two weeks is, on its face, not serving any incentive function because compliance isn’t possible. That argument was always available. It’s now statutorily supported.
Third, the Act grants the FMC authority to issue its own enforcement penalties and civil fines directly rather than having to pursue cases through the courts. The agency has already started using this. Expect the tempo of named carrier actions to pick up through Q4 2022.
The Interpretive Rule at 46 CFR 545.5 Is Your Audit Framework
Before OSRA, the FMC issued its interpretive rule on detention and demurrage at 46 CFR 545.5, finalised in May 2020. Read it. It tells you exactly what the FMC considers when evaluating whether a charge is reasonable. The factors include whether cargo was actually available for retrieval, whether the carrier provided adequate notice, whether the importer had a practical ability to return equipment, and whether port congestion or other conditions beyond the shipper’s control prevented compliance.
Every one of those factors maps to a specific line of documentation you should have in your file. If you don’t have it, you’re about to build it.
The FMC issued additional guidance in April 2022 clarifying that charges assessed while cargo cannot practically be picked up or returned, due to the carrier’s own operational constraints, a terminal closure, weather, or government order, will be viewed as presumptively unreasonable. That presumption is exactly the lever OSRA sharpened.
The Invoice Audit: What You Pull and What You Compare
Start with your 2021 and 2022 ocean freight invoices. You want every single line item, not just the top-level freight rate, because the money is in the extras.
For every shipment of chemicals out of a Chinese origin port, you want the following documents in one folder, ideally in your TMS or a shared drive organised by BL number:
- The original quote or service contract covering the shipment
- The bill of lading
- The arrival notice
- The freight invoice, itemised
- Any supplementary invoices for demurrage, detention, chassis, storage, or accessorial charges
- The terminal’s gate-in and gate-out records for your containers
- Empty return appointment confirmations or denials
- Any communications with the carrier, trucker, or terminal about appointment availability
- The free time and D&D tariff that was in effect at the port during that period
Most importers have two or three of these documents. The ones you’re missing are the ones that would support your case. Get them now, because carriers have no obligation to retain terminal gate records indefinitely, and the longer you wait, the thinner your evidence.
The Five Charges That Are Recovering Money Right Now
Once you have the documents assembled, focus on the five line items where chemical importers are winning disputes in volume.
Demurrage at the origin or destination port during carrier-caused delays. If the terminal couldn’t release your container for reasons attributable to the carrier, including missing release paperwork, customs hold interactions mismanaged by the carrier, or the carrier’s own empty stack being full, demurrage for those days is disputable. You need the gate records and the correspondence showing the cause.
Detention during empty-return appointment shortages. Through Q3 and Q4 2021, return appointments at Long Beach, Los Angeles, and New York/New Jersey were booking out two to three weeks. Carriers continued billing detention during those windows. Under OSRA, if you can show you attempted to book returns and were denied, the detention charge is not serving an incentive function and is recoverable.
Chassis split-bills and chassis usage fees. Chassis billing in 2021 got extreme. Drayage carriers were charging shippers for chassis time attributable to carrier-side scheduling failures, and ocean carriers were layering their own chassis usage fees on top. Compare your billed chassis days against your actual possession windows documented by the trucker’s gate-in and gate-out records. Any gap is disputable.
Peak season surcharges that continued past their tariff sunset date. Most PSS filings have specific start and end dates. Audit whether the PSS line item appeared on invoices after the tariff-stated end date. This one is mechanical: either the date is wrong or it isn’t.
General Rate Increases applied to FAK or spot business where no GRI was properly noticed. The FMC requires 30-day notice for rate increases on shipments subject to the tariff. GRIs applied to bookings made before the notice period are disputable. You need the booking date, the GRI effective date, and the carrier’s notice filing.
| Disputed Charge | Typical 2021 Amount per 20ft ISO Tank | Recovery Rate in FMC-Adjacent Disputes | Documentation Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demurrage during carrier-caused delay | $600 to $1,800 | 70 to 85% | Gate records, carrier correspondence |
| Detention during appointment shortage | $300 to $900 | 60 to 75% | Return appointment denials, screenshots |
| Chassis split-bill overcharges | $150 to $450 | 50 to 70% | Trucker gate logs |
| PSS after tariff end date | $200 to $600 | 90 to 100% | Tariff filing, invoice dates |
| Improperly noticed GRI | $150 to $500 per box | 40 to 60% | Booking date, GRI notice filing |
The Landed Cost Impact: Running the Audit Maths on a Real Shipment
Let’s walk through a concrete example. You imported 8 ISO tanks of a Chinese-origin polyether polyol out of Ningbo-Zhoushan to Long Beach in September 2021. Each tank 20 MT, total 160 MT, product value $3,200/MT, landed at Long Beach 14 October 2021. The port was in full crisis mode. Your cargo sat on the terminal for 11 days before you could pick it up, and you paid demurrage on all 11 of those days at $150 per day per tank after a 4-day free period. That is 7 chargeable days per tank times $150 times 8 tanks, equalling $8,400 in demurrage.
You then returned empties 6 days late because the carrier’s empty return appointment system was booking two weeks out for 20-foot slots. That’s detention at $75 per day per tank times 6 days times 8 tanks, equalling $3,600.
| Cost Component | Amount |
|---|---|
| FOB Ningbo 160 MT polyether polyol | $512,000 |
| Ocean freight, contracted rate all-in | $44,800 |
| Section 301 tariff at 25% | $128,000 |
| Port fees, customs, HMF, MPF | $2,700 |
| Demurrage billed at Long Beach, 7 days x 8 tanks | $8,400 |
| Detention billed, 6 days x 8 tanks | $3,600 |
| Chassis split-bill surcharge | $1,600 |
| Peak season surcharge applied to all 8 boxes | $2,400 |
| Inland to final destination | $6,400 |
| Total landed cost before audit | $709,900 |
| Landed cost per MT, before audit | $4,437/MT |
Now run the audit. The 7 days of demurrage include the 5 days the terminal was refusing appointment bookings because of the known October 2021 Long Beach congestion emergency. The 6 days of detention are all attributable to the carrier’s empty return system being capacity-closed. The chassis split-bill is a 2021-era double-charge that FMC guidance now treats as unreasonable. The peak season surcharge on those specific tanks applied to a bill of lading issued after the PSS’s stated end date.
Reasonable recovery scenario: $6,000 of demurrage, $3,000 of detention, $1,100 of chassis, $2,400 of PSS. Total: $12,500 of $16,000 in disputed charges. That is $78 per MT returned directly to P&L on a single shipment.
For an importer moving 3,000 MT a year out of China with a comparable surcharge exposure, you’re looking at roughly $234,000 of recoverable charges sitting in the 2021 and 2022 invoice stack. That is real money. That is an accountable head count.
How to File a Charge Complaint: The 46 CFR 545.5 Procedure
Before you file anything with the FMC, request the refund directly from the carrier in writing. Cite 46 CFR 545.5 and OSRA 2022 explicitly. Attach your documentation. Give them 30 days. A surprising share of disputes now settle at this stage because the carriers know the FMC posture has shifted and they don’t want named enforcement actions.
If the carrier refuses or doesn’t respond, you have two procedural options.
First is the FMC’s small claims procedure for disputes under $50,000, which is designed to be accessible without full-scale legal representation. File a complaint with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, DC 20573. The agency’s e-filing system accepts complaints directly. The standard complaint must identify the parties, the factual basis, the legal violation, the relief sought, and the evidence.
Second, and more aggressive, is a formal proceeding under section 41109, which invokes the full FMC adjudication process. This is appropriate for larger pattern cases where you have, say, 18 months of disputed charges from a single carrier covering multiple BLs. You can consolidate and seek declaratory and monetary relief.
OSRA also created a charge complaint process specifically designed for demurrage and detention disputes. The FMC has a streamlined procedure: you file, the carrier has 30 days to respond or refund, and if the carrier can’t justify the charge under 46 CFR 545.5, the FMC can order the refund. This is the lane most chemical importers should use for 2021 and 2022 disputes.
Keep in mind that retention of counsel specialised in FMC practice pays for itself above a certain dispute size. For individual BL disputes under $10,000, you can run the process yourself. Above $50,000, talk to a shipping-specialised firm.
The 90-Day Action Plan Before Q4 Closes
You have roughly 90 days before calendar year-end. Use them.
Pull your 2021 and 2022 invoices into a single audit file, organised by BL and by charge category. Your accounts payable team has the invoices. Your TMS or forwarder has the supporting gate records and booking confirmations. Combine them.
Pick three shipments that are obvious recovery candidates and run the full dispute process on them. You’ll learn the procedure, you’ll see which carriers respond fastest, and you’ll calibrate your expected recovery rate. Use those three as templates.
Then scale the audit across the full invoice stack. If you can identify $200,000 of recoverable charges and recover $120,000, that’s a six-figure hit to your 2023 landed cost baseline that came from paperwork, not negotiation.
Build the discipline now so that your 2023 freight invoices get the same scrutiny in real time. Demurrage billed this week should be disputed this week, not audited in 2024. The FMC has given you the statute. The interpretive rule at 46 CFR 545.5 has given you the framework. OSRA 2022 has put the burden of proof on the carrier. The only thing left is for you to do the work.