WASHINGTON (LN) — The D.C. Circuit on Monday denied Evergreen Shipping Agency's challenge to a Federal Maritime Commission order holding that $510 in detention charges levied against a Georgia trucking company for equipment it physically could not return during a COVID-era port closure were unreasonable under the Shipping Act of 1984.
Senior Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, held that the FMC's Order on Remand was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the agency's Interpretive Rule — which directs the commission to consider the extent to which detention charges are serving their intended primary purposes as financial incentives to promote freight fluidity.
The dispute traces to April 2020, when TCW, Inc., a trucking company hired by Yamaha Motor Company to haul goods from the Port of Savannah to Yamaha's plant in Newnan, Georgia, failed to return Evergreen's container and chassis on time. Yamaha's plant had shut down because of the pandemic, and the Port of Savannah closed its gates on May 23-25 — a Saturday closed due to reduced business as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a regular Sunday, and Memorial Day. TCW returned the equipment May 26 when the port reopened. Evergreen invoiced TCW $1,490 in total detention charges; TCW disputed $510 covering the three closure days.
The commission held the $510 unreasonable twice — first in 2022, then again on remand in February 2025 after the D.C. Circuit vacated the initial order in Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp. v. Federal Maritime Commission, 106 F.4th 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2024), for failing to address Evergreen's justifications and for applying the incentive principle too mechanically.
On remand, the FMC conducted the fact-specific analysis the court had demanded, working through each of Evergreen's four claimed extenuating circumstances — the 21-day free-time allotment, TCW's contractual acceptance of detention liability, TCW's advance notice of the closures, and the fact that free time had already expired before the port shut down — and rejecting all of them.
Edwards said the commission's conclusion rested on three facts Evergreen itself had conceded: TCW could not retrieve the equipment from Yamaha's plant any earlier than May 23; the port's gates were physically closed to new deliveries on May 23-25; and Evergreen incurred no costs from the delay. The court noted that Evergreen had the opportunity to rebut this evidence or to seek discovery and chose not to do so.
Evergreen's principal argument on the second appeal — that the FMC had abandoned the incentive principle and replaced it with an unauthorized freight fluidity principle — drew a sharp rejection. Edwards said freight fluidity was not a new test but the explicit text of the Interpretive Rule itself, which directs the commission to consider the extent to which demurrage and detention are serving their intended primary purposes as financial incentives to promote freight fluidity. The court also pointed to FMC guidance released alongside the rule, which stated that if demurrage cannot act as an incentive for cargo and equipment fluidity because, for instance, a marine terminal is closed for several days due to a storm, charging demurrage in such a situation, even if a container is already in demurrage, raises questions as to whether such demurrage practices are tailored to their intended purpose in accordance with section 41102(c).
The panel also rejected Evergreen's argument that the commission relied on unsupported assumptions about port congestion and carrier disincentives, holding that those predictions fell within FMC's area of expertise and were grounded in stakeholder forums the agency held at major gateway ports.
Evergreen's attempt to invoke a once on detention, always on detention rule fared no better. The commission refused to adopt that bright-line approach, and the court agreed, noting that Evergreen had submitted no evidence that the charges could be justified as compensation for costs it never actually incurred.
Evergreen did not submit rebuttal evidence below and never requested discovery — a posture the court noted repeatedly in rejecting the carrier's substantial-evidence arguments.
The case consumed the parties for six years, traveled to the D.C. Circuit twice, and ultimately turned on $510.