Bill in the National Congress could increase port operation costs

Stevedoring is the cargo handling activity at port facilities, including reception, checking, internal transportation and delivery (Sílvio Luiz/AT)

The increase in costs is the main impact caused by the bill that prohibits charging for port services already included in stevedoring - the services carried out during the handling of goods within port facilities, which include from unloading to after passing through Customs. This assessment comes from maritime law specialist and columnist of A Tribuna, Cristina Wadner. "We will wait to see what will be decided because, once approved, the parties will have to adapt to this", she says.

Progress

The Bill (PL) 2,966, of the senator Daniella Ribeiro (PSD-PB), has been in progress since 2021 and recently had a scheduled meeting at the Secretariat of Infrastructure canceled, with no new date set. It will then move to the Infrastructure Committee and later to the Social Affairs Committee before being voted in the Chamber. If there is no changes, it will proceed to presidential sanction. Otherwise, it will return to the Senate. The project's justification is that private initiative began exploiting port activities in Brazil in the 1990's, and shipping companies - mainly foreign ones - have dominated much of the stevedoring port services.

Impacts

Explaining the cost increase, the lawyer used as an example a ship arrival where the shipowner declares to the terminal that there are 3,500 containers on board. Upon unloading, the number is confirmed and certified, and an invoice is issued directly to the shipowner. In other words, the THC (Terminal Handling Charge) multiplied by the number of containers. THC is part of the stevedoring services charged by national and foreign shipping companies.

"The terminal will have to issue each invoice separately. It's counterproductive. If each container on that ship represents a different importer or exporter, there are 3,500 invoices to be issued. This movement is due, and this charge made to the shipowner, who then passes it to the cargo users, is not prohibited. However, as cargo users perceive that the shipowner is profiting from this fee, they want the terminal to bill them directly. And here's the first impact: someone will have to pay for the cost of this individual invoicing labor, which will increase the terminal's cost and possibly the freight itself", she explains.

Another situation highlighted by the lawyer is the period between the exporter depositing the cargo, the container entering the terminal and then being taken to the ship, which usually takes four to five days. This time is referred to the shipowner as free time, during which the exporter will not pay anything for leaving the container five or six days earlier.

"This charged amount is within the THC. The terminal will not work for free, filling all the space with, let's say, 3,000 containers delivered five days before to be loaded to a particular ship. That's why I say: besides the cost of individual invoicing, who will foot the bill for this storage?", she questions.

Studies

The lawyer also recalled that a few years ago the National Waterway Transport Agency (Antaq) conducted a study comparing the THC charged in Brazil and in other countries.

"They found terminals that charge 15% more and others 15% less. Brazil was in the average. No abuse was found to suggest that foreign shipowners were illicitly enriching themselves with this amount. And Antaq issued two resolutions also suggesting that it could be done through the shipowner, who has a civil contract with the port operator. There is no problem with them having this contract directly and THC being charged the way it is today", she reveals.