A long-running dispute over container detention charges between Evergreen and a U.S. trucking company has been resolved, with a federal appeals court siding squarely with the regulator and reinforcing limits on when carriers can impose such fees.
In a decision issued April 28, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a petition by Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp. and upheld a ruling by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) that certain detention charges were unreasonable.
The case stems from a 2020 shipment handled for Yamaha Motor Co., in which trucking firm TCW was designated to move cargo inland from the Port of Savannah to a Georgia manufacturing plant.
Evergreen provided a container and chassis to TCW with limited “free time” — 21 days for the container and four days for the chassis — after which daily detention fees would apply.
Complications arose when Yamaha’s plant shut down due to COVID-19, delaying TCW’s ability to retrieve and return the equipment. When TCW finally recovered the container, the Savannah port gates were closed for three consecutive days (May 23–25, 2020), preventing return of the equipment.
Evergreen nonetheless charged $510 in detention fees for those days as part of a $1,490 invoice. TCW paid under protest and filed a complaint with the FMC, arguing the charges were unjust because it was physically impossible to return the equipment during the closure.
FMC: Fees Must Promote “Freight Fluidity”
The FMC initially agreed with TCW, finding that detention charges cannot serve their intended purpose — encouraging timely equipment return — when return is impossible.
After an earlier appeal and remand, the FMC revisited the case and again ruled against Evergreen, emphasizing that the core test under the Shipping Act is whether such fees promote “freight fluidity,” not simply whether they create theoretical incentives.
The Commission concluded that charging detention during a port closure—particularly when the trucker could not access the cargo sooner due to a plant shutdown—did nothing to improve cargo movement and therefore violated the reasonableness standard.
Court Affirms FMC’s Approach
In its latest ruling, the D.C. Circuit upheld the FMC’s reasoning, finding it supported by “substantial evidence” and consistent with the agency’s interpretive rule on demurrage and detention.
The court pointed to three undisputed facts:
Given those facts, the court agreed that the charges neither incentivized faster return nor compensated the carrier for actual losses.
Importantly, the court rejected Evergreen’s argument that the FMC had improperly replaced the industry’s “incentive principle” with a new “freight fluidity” standard, noting that promoting fluid cargo movement has always been central to the rule.
The decision reinforces the FMC’s increasingly assertive stance on detention and demurrage practices, a flashpoint issue for shippers, truckers, and port stakeholders since the pandemic-era supply chain disruptions.