Ocean Shipping Reform: The Records Behind a Detention Dispute

The FMC gave importers the right to contest container charges. Exercising it depends on a timeline most importers do not systematically keep. Here is the record that wins.

Dwayne ThompsonEngineering, standards & trade editor · Kingston

November 18, 2023 · 6 min read

Cranes loading a container ship, illustrating the records behind a detention dispute. · Image: Girder Group

The FMC handed importers a right they mostly cannot use. The 2024 billing rule lets a shipper dispute a demurrage or detention charge, but a dispute is only as good as the container timeline behind it, and most importers reconstruct that timeline from scratch, per container, under a deadline. The right exists; the records to exercise it usually do not.

Key takeaways

A detention or demurrage charge is defeated or upheld by the container's event timeline, not by argument.
The events that matter, availability, last free day, gate-out, empty return, sit across carrier and terminal systems.
Disputes have a window; a timeline assembled after the deadline is worth little.
The importers who recover charges are the ones capturing the timeline continuously, not reactively.

The timeline is the case

Under the FMC’s framework, a charge stands or falls on facts: when the container became available, when free time ran, when it was picked up or returned, and whether the terminal was actually able to accept it (FMC). These events are the evidence. An importer disputing “on principle” without them is negotiating, not contesting.

The difficulty is that the events live in different systems the importer does not own, carrier milestones, terminal gate records, chassis availability, and are rarely assembled into one timeline until a charge is already in dispute. Reconstruction under a deadline is slow and error-prone, which is why many valid disputes are never filed.

The rule’s dispute windows make this decisive. A timeline produced after the window has closed is not a defence. The importers that recover charges treat the container timeline as a standing record captured as events happen, so a dispute is a query rather than a project.

“The right exists; the records to exercise it usually do not.”

How AI could address the gap

The detention dispute is a data-assembly problem before it is a legal one: gather the timeline, compare it to the charge, act within the window. That assembly is exactly what defeats a lean trade team.

AI-assisted systems can build the per-container timeline from carrier and terminal feeds, flag charges that the timeline contradicts, and prepare the dispute inside the deadline. The decision and the relationship stay with the importer; the machine keeps the evidence assembled, the same standing-reconciliation idea we apply across this coverage.

Building the platforms, portals, and systems that make these obligations provable is what Girder Group does.

Sources

1.FMC Publishes Final Rule on Detention and Demurrage Billing Practices.Federal Maritime Commission
2.Demurrage and Detention Billing Requirements, final rule, 26 February 2024.Federal Register

Dwayne Thompson

Engineering, standards & trade editor · Girder Group · Kingston

Dwayne Thompson writes on compliance engineering, standards (NIST), and trade and logistics regulation (CBP, DOT, FMC), from Girder Group's Kingston desk.

Meet the desk