Splash247: Samsung hits CMA CGM with $186m FMC claim

Published by Splash247

Samsung Electronics America is seeking at least $186m from CMA CGM in one of the largest shipper claims to emerge from the pandemic-era container crunch, accusing the French liner of imposing huge cargo charges while failing to complete prepaid inland deliveries in the US.

The complaint, formally served by the Federal Maritime Commission this month, centres on store-door shipments handled by CMA CGM from 2020 onwards. Samsung alleges the carrier repeatedly failed to move boxes from US marine and rail terminals to their inland destinations, while passing the resulting demurrage, detention and rail-storage bills back to the electronics giant.

Samsung said the dispute covers more than 121,000 individual charges. The complaint breaks that down into more than 26,000 demurrage charges and over 94,000 detention-type charges, alongside rail storage and other fees, which it claims were assessed on a normal and recurring basis.

At the heart of the case is CMA CGM’s handling of so-called store-door cargo. Under those shipments, Samsung said the carrier had been paid to move containers beyond the discharge port to an agreed inland destination. Samsung alleges CMA CGM nevertheless began terminating or diverting some of those moves after discharge and converting them to container-yard, or CY, shipments, leaving Samsung to arrange the final leg itself.

One example cited in the filing involved a container shipped from Busan to The Colony, Texas, via Long Beach in August 2021. Samsung claims CMA CGM changed the move to merchant haulage after arrival and left Samsung to organise inland delivery, with the box eventually accumulating $162,799 in rail storage charges.

Another group of containers caught up in a chassis shortage at an inland rail ramp generated $3.75m of charges, according to Samsung. The company claims CMA CGM required it to pay rail storage directly before the boxes would be released even though Samsung had no contractual relationship with the railroad.

Samsung has also attacked CMA CGM’s use of cargo and credit holds. In April 2022, it claims 40 containers at New York and New Jersey were prevented from moving because of a disputed $590,000 charge involving a CMA CGM affiliate in Mexico.

The damages claim currently comprises $148m of allegedly unlawful demurrage, detention, rail-storage and associated costs, at least $8.1m spent by Samsung taking over inland transportation and other mitigation work, and at least $30m of prejudgment interest. Samsung is also seeking lost revenue, employee and legal costs that have yet to be quantified, meaning the ultimate amount claimed could rise further.

The case did not arrive at the FMC without attempts to settle it. Samsung said it sent CMA CGM a formal demand in July 2024, after which the companies entered into a tolling agreement. Representatives met several times during 2025 and 2026, but Samsung claims those talks failed to produce repayment or a broader resolution.

It is the latest in a growing series of FMC fights Samsung has pursued over pandemic-era container charges. Splash reported in May that the company had taken Wan Hai Lines to the commission over more than $1.2m of detention, demurrage and related fees tied to store-door cargo. Samsung also has proceedings involving COSCO, HMM and OOCL.

An FMC administrative law judge last year awarded Samsung $3.68m after finding certain ZIM cargo holds and practices unreasonable under the Shipping Act. That initial decision is still under commission review, with the deadline for a final decision currently pushed to October 20.

CMA CGM has itself faced repeated scrutiny of billing practices. In 2024, the carrier paid $1.975m under an FMC compromise agreement over allegations that it used an overly broad definition of “merchant” to demand payment from parties that should not have been billed. The French liner did not admit violations under that settlement and also agreed to refunds or waivers for affected parties.

The regulatory ground around detention and demurrage has hardened considerably since the worst of the supply-chain crisis. The FMC’s central test remains whether such charges actually serve as an incentive to move cargo and return equipment. In July, a US appeals court upheld the commission’s application of that principle in an Evergreen case, including its finding that detention charges imposed when equipment could not realistically be returned were unreasonable.

The FMC has assigned Samsung’s complaint to its Office of Administrative Law Judges. CMA CGM has 25 days from the September 1 service date to answer. The initial decision is due by September 1, 2027, with a final commission decision scheduled by March 15, 2028.