Return to Chile: the abuse of shipping and storage companies

Dear gentlemen of CIPER:

I am writing to tell you briefly about my experience and thus reveal the great abuse that is being committed both by maritime transport companies and by storage companies, against Chilean citizens who, scattered around the world, try to bring their belongings once once they have decided to return to the country.

I am Ximena Miranda Tassara and I have just returned to the country after more than 25 years of residence in Perth, Australia. The odyssey began in June of this year when I decided to hire the services of an Australian company called Indian Ocean, which is dedicated to maritime transport. The commitment of this company consisted of transferring some of my personal belongings from the city of Fremantle to the city of Valparaíso for the sum of $536 AUD (about $255 thousand), and whose total load corresponded to 0.7458 m3. in document No. 81867, issued by the Australian company Indian Ocean Shipping Agencies, as well as the cubic capacity of the cargo dispatched from Australia to Chile and its amount (see document).

The declared load corresponded only to personal items: used clothing, crockery, kitchen utensils, a few balls of wool, a small sewing machine for domestic use and some bathroom items.

In the meantime, the manager of Indian Ocean suggested that I send the boxes on a pallet, so that they would not be lost during the trip. For the pallet I had to pay an additional US$100.

So far, so good... The cargo arrived within the agreed deadlines, however, when it arrived in Chile, a second actor appeared on the scene: the company Cargo Master, which acted as an "intermediary" with the Australian company. This company, in turn, received my cargo at the hands of a new transport company, Asean Cargo Pty Limited. But the cubic capacity calculation did not coincide with that made by Indian Ocean: this time 1,416 m3 were included, which finally, as they explained to me, led to a final calculation of 2 m3 (see document).

Cargo Master informed me that, in order to remove the cargo, it was necessary to pay an additional $257,040, also for transportation, and issued an invoice for that additional amount (see invoice).

At this point I would like to dwell on an absolutely irregular situation: the Cargo Master company ended up charging me 2 mt3, consequently the Australian company Indian Ocean had only invoiced me for 0.74 mt3 when the cargo left for Chile. The explanation given to me by a third party - since Cargo Master never gave me an explanation as to why the cargo "increased on the way" from 0.74 to 1.4 m3 - was that the difference in volume was due to Cargo Master had done the calculation with the pallet included. If so, the non-existence of a uniform criterion between both companies is evident, to put it in some way.

As the information from Cargo Master was null and even less transparent, since it always showed a terrible willingness to clarify my doubts, and given the urgency to remove the cargo, I had no choice but to cancel the new invoiced amount.

A few days after having made this second payment, Cargo Master notified me that the cargo was "deconsolidated" in Valparaíso and that I had to pick it up "at the port", without mentioning that for this it was first necessary to carry out a series of procedures, which I might as well have done it while waiting for the aforementioned “deconsolidation” of my stuff.

Thus, when I went to the Valparaíso Customs Office, they informed me that in order to start the procedures, I would first have to obtain the documentation from the company in charge of extra-port storage of my cargo, in this case Sitrans; and that later I had to go to the Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG), so that this service included me in the list of inspections outside the port.

These proceedings were never previously reported to me. Moreover, it is apparently taken for granted that one must know them. Both Cargo Master and the Customs Directorate did not give me the slightest advice to facilitate these procedures. I found out everything along the way, after an exhausting back and forth between Playa Ancha, where the SAG offices are; the Valparaíso plan, where Customs is located; and Curauma, where the Sitrans facilities are located.

As expected, one day was not enough for me to carry out all the required procedures, and I had to return on Monday, November 2 to continue. Finally, and after two full days of paperwork, long waits, comings and goings from one place to another, I finally managed to have all the required papers.

Once in the Sitrans warehouses, convinced that only the bureaucratic process of the SAG inspection and the Customs Directorate was waiting for me, I found a new surprise: my cargo was not on the inspection list scheduled by the Agricultural and Livestock Service. Later, a person in charge of Sitrans informed me that they would do everything possible to get said inspector to include us on his list, in order to facilitate the prompt departure of my belongings.

Once the inspection was over, a new surprise awaited me: in order to remove my belongings, I had to go through the checkout to cancel a new invoice with the part that corresponded to this storage company. Sitrans, an extra-port company, in charge of removing my things from the port of Valparaíso, and to whom I never even had the opportunity to choose, issued me an invoice for a total amount of $220,738 (see invoice).

I would like to make it clear that in the collection made by Sitrans (on an invoice of $220,738) for storage, I was able to see other irregularities: once again, the calculations were applied based on a load of 2 m3, they charged me for four days of storage, which include as full days the day on which the cargo is “deconsolidated”, even when this becomes effective just after noon and, finally, the day on which the cargo is delivered to me, even when this delivery is effective at approximately 3:00 p.m. :00 hours.

In addition to the above, the Sitrans invoice contains a gloss that is completely incomprehensible to anyone, full of technicalities that do nothing to clarify what clearly represents - in my opinion - a new abuse in this long chain. For example, the document mentions the inspection of the SAG as part of the collection, consequently, he had personally already gone to the offices of said agency to pay the sum of $22,388 (see invoice). I would like to point out that the gloss on the SAG ticket clearly says “Physical Inspection (see document).

As I refused to cancel an amount that I considered completely abusive and not very transparent, I asked to speak with the billing manager of said company. Before him, I explained the irregularity in the calculation of the cubage and I asked him, considering the legitimacy of my claims, to proceed to recalculate what I was being charged. What I got in response was a discount of $24,162, as a “courtesy gesture” and the promise that if I managed to get Cargo Master to cover part of this cost, only then would Sitrans be in a position to improve the “ gesture of courtesy” to me.

Needless to say, Cargo Master turned a deaf ear to this request, and in addition Sitrans did the same.

For its part, the Fifth Region Customs Directorate agreed to notify me within two weeks - which has already expired for a long time - if my case was subject to customs exemption or, failing that, I must pay an approximate amount of $100,000 , as informed by the Customs official.

The franchise in question is granted to people who, returning to the country, have remained abroad for a minimum period of one year or more, uninterruptedly. It never ceases to amaze me that, despite the fact that I have lived abroad for long 27 years, for the sole fact of having come on vacation last year for three months, my right to said franchise is questioned on a mere technicality. To date, I still have no answer regarding this last point.

All in all, I ended up paying close to $800,000 for a few personal belongings. For this, I had to deal with four intermediary companies and institutions; a dozen officials, all with a bad disposition; two trips to Valparaíso and accept the use and abuse made by maritime transport and storage companies in the sight and patience of the Chilean Customs Directorate. According to what was reported by the official who assisted me at the Valparaíso Customs, "the collections by these companies are typical of a free market economy" and in that the Customs Directorate only refers to supervising the correct administrative functioning of these companies.

Hoping that this is a reason for your consideration, yours sincerely

Ximena Miranda Tassara (ID: 9.248.043-7)