During May 1999 the Federal Maritime Commission’s Bureau of Enforcement collected a total of US$ 2,900,000 in civil
penalties from ten (10) organizations, including vessel operating common carriers, NVOCCs acting as shippers and
carriers, and freight forwarders. These organizations were alleged to have violated the Shipping Acts of 1984 and
1998. The compromise agreements are:

A & M Independent Line , Inc.
: this Miami, FL based NVOCC, operating in the South American trades, was alleged to have violated sections 10
(a)(1) and 10 (b)(1) of the 1984 Act by obtaining transportation at less than the applicable rates and charges and by
charging, demanding, collecting or receiving less compensation for the transportation of property than the rates and
charges set forth in its tariff. A & M paid the sum of $50,000.

American Commercial Transport, Inc.
: this Gardena, CA based NVOCC was alleged to have violated section 10 (a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 by
misdeclaring or misweighing cargo, or by co-loading cargo with other NVOCCs in violation of restrictions applicable to
ACT’s service contracts. Under the terms of the compromise, ACT paid the amount of $65,000.

China Interocean Transport, Inc. (CIT) and Sino-Am Marine Company, Inc.
: CIT is a licensed freight forwarder based in Linden, NJ. Sino-Am Marine Company, Inc., a corporate affiliate of
CIT, is an NVOCC located in New York, NY. It was alleged that Sino-Am, directly or on behalf of others, violated
section 10 (a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 obtaining transportation at less than applicable rates or charges by not
paying outstanding deadfreight charges with respect to its service contract with SINOTRANS and by permitting
non-signatory parties to obtain access to its contract. In addition, it was alleged that CIT, a licensed forwarder
related to the contract shipper, violated section 19(d) and 46 C.F.R. Part 510, by receiving freight forwarder
compensation on shipments in which the forwarder had a direct or indirect beneficial interest. Under the compromise,
CIT and Sino-Am paid the amount of $70,000 .

Compania Sud Americana de Vapores (CSAV)
: this vessel-operating common carrier located in Valparaiso, Chile was alleged to have violated sections 10
(b)(1-4) and 19 (d)(3) of the Shipping Act of 1984 by charging, demanding, collecting or receiving different
compensation for the transportation of property than the applicable rates or charges by refunding or rebating a
portion of the applicable rates, allowing shippers to obtain ocean transportation for less than the applicable rates
or charges, paying excess compensation to ocean freight forwarders, and engaging in service contract malpractices.
Pursuant to the compromise, CSAV paid the amount of $1,850,000.

Eagle Transfer, Inc. d/b/a NPI Line
: this NVOCC located in Miami, FL was alleged to have violated sections 10 (a)(1) and 10 (b)(1) of the Shipping
Act of 1984 by obtaining transportation for less than applicable rates and charges by receiving rebates and other rate
concessions and by engaging in service contract misuse, and by charging rates other than those set forth in its
applicable tariffs. In compromise of these allegations, NPI Line paid the sum of $150,000.

Freight Line of the Americas, Inc.
: this Miami, FL based NVOCC was alleged to have violated section 10(a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 by
obtaining transportation of property for less than applicable rates and charges by receiving rebates and other rate
concessions. Freight Line of the Americas paid $50,000.

Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC)
: this vessel operating common carrier was alleged to have violated sections 10 (b)(1), 10 (b)(2) and 10 (b)(4) of
the Shipping Act of 1984 by charging, demanding, collecting or receiving different compensation for the transportation
of property than the applicable rates and charges by refunding or rebating to shippers in the South American trades a
portion of the applicable rates. In compromise of these allegations, MSC paid the amount of $360,000.

Mercator Shipping, Ltd. d/b/a Flamingo Line
: this Miami, FL based NVOCC was alleged to have violated section 10 (a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 by
obtaining transportation of property for less than applicable rates and charges by receiving rebates and other rate
concessions. Under the terms of the compromise Mercator paid the sum of $200,000.

Metro Freight Services, Inc. and Georges T. Samaha
: Metro Freight Services, Inc. is a licensed ocean freight forwarder located in Inwood, NY. Mr. Samaha is Metro’s
owner and the qualifying individual for its license. It was alleged that Metro and Mr. Samaha violated sections 10
(a)(1) and 19 (d)(4) of the Shipping Acts by obtaining transportation at less than the applicable rates and charges by
creating and utilizing an NVOCC (Maritime Express Lines, Inc.), which did not provide common carrier services, to sign
service contracts for the purpose of providing Metro’s customers with unlawful access to service contract rates and
charges. In addition, it was alleged that Metro collected freight forwarder compensation on shipments in which it had
a beneficial interest. Metro paid the amount of $15,000 in compromise.

Orient Express Container Company, Ltd. (OEC)
: this Taiwan based NVOCC was alleged to have violated section 10 (a)(1) of the Shipping Act of 1984 by obtaining
transportation at less than the applicable rates and charges by means of commodity misdescriptions, misdeclarations of
measurements and by other unjust and unfair devices. In compromise of these allegations, OEC paid $90,000.

In concluding these compromises, these entities did not admit any violations of the Shipping Acts of 1984 or the
Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA) of 1998. In a statement announcing these compromises FMC Chairman Hal Creel said:
“Unquestionably, OSRA has brought about significant modification to and certain reductions in the regulatory
requirements for the maritime shipping industry. However, this statute does contain a number of regulatory
requirements, including adherence to rates and charges as set forth in published tariffs and filed service
contracts. The Commission will continue to monitor and to enforce all statutory and regulatory obligations for
activities prior to, as well as subsequent to, May 1, 1999, the effective date of OSRA. We will endeavor to
encourage and ensure that all participants meet their compliance obligations in order that all appropriately may
benefit from the new OSRA environment.”