Costa Concordia sinking, and how it impacts India

Most of the articles on the subject of the sinking after the absolutely rash behaviour of the ship and people onboard the Costa Concordia seem to focus on the navigational and behavioural aspects of the whole episode. However, there are other issues of ship design, stability, documentation, alcohol onboard and more, which also need to be fleshed out.

Here's the first article by me on the subject.

http://www.moneylife.in/article/costa-concordia-capsizingmdash-and-how-it-impacts-india/23041.html

Costa Concordia capsizing— and how it impacts India...
January 18, 2012 08:31 AM |
Veeresh Malik

How did the Costa Concordia simply keel over and capsize so quickly after being breached? Slightly deeper waters and she would have simply gone down, with no trace on the surface. Half exposed, she is going to be like that for a long time now, as a daily reminder to an industry slow on pro-active steps for better ships

As a leading provider of maritime workers to the world, not just technical but now increasingly in the hospitality and catering part of matters maritime too, thesinking of the Italian passenger liner ‘Costa Concordia’ impacts India in more ways than just the 300-odd Indian families whose bread-winners worked onboard what turns out to be a case of alleged criminal activity by a master and his complete set of navigating and other officers onboard. Variously being referred to as ‘grounding’ or ‘accident’, it is clear to all that this was an episode which was the result of a top-down failure of any form of responsible behaviour, from the owners and operators ashore to the junior-most officer onboard.

Not just the captain. In other words, if the captain was doing something, which was criminal to the point of being insane, then there were enough alternates available to counter such activities. In the so-called “good old days” the concept of being a “crack skipper” did not mean that the ‘Old Man’ was a psycho, but to be frank, it was close enough. And as long as they got the job done, some eccentricities were not just tolerated, but often treated as virtues. A life at sea is not easy, simple as that and the special breed of men and women needed have to be given latitude. It is even tougher on passenger ships, where the cargo tends to be far more demanding, since it is on two feet.

Going too close to rocks or shoals for sight-seeing, however, is not part of it. Certainly, there were navigators in the old days, present company included, who would venture to go close to Dieo Garcia to see if they could ‘spook’ the Americans into launching aircraft to chase them away, or head right next to Krakatova to take photographs of the volcano, or, most commonly, hug the Portuguese Coast when in the Atlantic so that the Goans on board could get a glimpse—but even then, in cargo ships with far less windage and certainly lesser potential loss of lives, the distance away from any features was in miles, not metres.

The Costa Concordia tried to get to within 150-200 metres of a known shoal. It was over 300 metres long, 35 metres wide, and even trying to turn away fromthe rocks would bring it closer, because the stern would swing into the turn towards the rocks, even before the bow would swing away—that is the nature of ships. Add uncertain winds close to shore, the natural attraction of land masses and ships, and a novice sailor on a dinghy would stay clear.

But then again, the bigger question is, what were the other people doing while this master apparently took actions which were not just stupid but criminal?

Consider the following:

# Even basic cargo ships are now equipped with data loggers that send live reports on a variety of parameters to shipping company offices ashore. It is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) to keep a 24x7 watch on the progress of the assets afloat, multi-million dollars worth of ship, cargo and lives onboard. Just one of many reasons—the risk of environmental pollution due to leakage of oil, and the liabilities that follow—keeps people on board on their toes, aware that their every move is not just being tracked for analysis ashore, but also watched and listened to in real time. These parameters include status in live feed on aspects such as navigation, engine, performance, weather routing, even rest hours of crew working on board. Anything even whispered on the bridge or engine room can and is heard ashore.

# It is far more stringent on passenger ships. The days when a master of a ship was the last word on what happened on a ship have vanished quite some time back. A deviation from a course laid out, especially landwards into dangerous waters, would typically raise alarms and escalations at a variety of levels onboard and ashore. Analysing by hind-sight is always 20/20, but in this case, there is no way that such a violent deviation to within metres of an island would not have required an escalation to a person ashore with authority over the master. Such a person or persons is known as a DPA (Designated Person Ashore) and every ship afloat has to have more than one, so that action, if required, can be guided also from ashore.

# That such alarms on board and ashore were not recognised or responded to can only imply that either the whole lot of the people involved were celebrating a late night, on a Friday, or that this was done with full complicity of all involved. It can also be conjectured that the famous “over-ride” switches came into play, but not only on the ship—this would have happened ashore also. If there is a case that voice and data transmission from a ship is disconnected, then that gives rise to an even higher level of response and accountability. To blame only the master on board in such a case would again be incorrect—there are people ashore whose job it is to see that such direct violations do not occur.

# And finally, most importantly, it is a basic rule of Bridge Team Management, or any form of relationship between senior and junior officers on board, that a junior officer is given the full liberty to escalate or even in some cases countermand an order that is so obviously dangerous. The days when a master could browbeat a junior officer are over—even the junior-most officer on the bridge or crew member on lookout or helm duties, or even the catering person making coffee, has the authority to pick up one of many sat-phones on board and call the DPA directly, to inform him that he can see the porch lights of the houses they are passing, so close are they to the coast. This authority, the right to call the DPA on 24x7 basis using the ship’s communication gear if required, is printed and pasted all over the ship including in every mess-room and alleyway on every ship.

So how then, does this impact India?

The now not so recent phenomenon of piracy in and around the Horn of Africa leading to a total revamp on ocean routings in the Arabian Sea has brought ships on international passages unrelated to India to within miles of the Indian coast. There is the most obvious risk of ocean-going ships of all sorts not familiar with Indian coastal waters coming far too close.

But more than that, other issues impacting India in context with a far-awaysinking are:

# Higher insurance premiums which shall be spread across all the fleets of the world as a direct result of the huge claims that shall certainly be raised on the Costa Concordia and their insurers and then their re-insurers. Liabilities on western fleets are much higher and the insurance industry, in its wisdom and no doubt with lesser resistance, is known to spread the downside to the rest of the non-complaining world. Alert readers may recall how the aviation industry globally paid for September 11—similar or even bigger aviation-related disasters in the developing world have never raised such huge bills for the rest of the world to carry.

# Disquieting reports on the issue of language unfamiliarity with the Indian crew on board are surfacing through the grapevine, as well as issues of their certification and documentation, which are both not surprising. The saloon and catering crew is also supposed to be trained in basic life-saving and fire-fighting as well as passenger ship safety and crowd management techniques. The reality, as is well known, is something different. A walk to the Shipping Master’s office at Ballard Estate in Mumbai will provide an inkling of how similar it is to the RTOs and passport offices in this context. It is also a fact that Italian maritime certification also leaves a lot to be desired.

# A further increase in certification of safety required on board passenger ships, which will impact the already depleted fleet of passenger ships available to us in India for coastal, coast-to-island and inter-island ferries. This is in addition to the ships required for riverine movement of passengers. Viewed in isolation, this is good from the single point objective of safety, but in reality it spells even more delays. The truth on connectivity by sea of India’s islands is pathetic, if not worse, and this episode will further alienate our islands.

Bigger passenger ship and ferry disasters take place in Asian and African waters frequently. Hundreds of lives are lost and often this does not spark more than passing attention and one reason is simply because those ships are often more than decrepit. The other reasons are too racist to mention here.

But ships like the Costa Concordia, amongst the biggest and costliest passenger ships that ever sailed the oceans, are not supposed to sink like this. Leave aside the human element, ship-design, especially recent passenger ship design, is supposed to take care of one major aspect not too many people are talking about.

And that is—how did the Costa Concordia simply keel over and capsize so quickly after being breached? Slightly deeper waters and she would have simply gone down, with no trace on the surface. Half exposed, she is going to be like that for a long time now, as a daily reminder to an industry slow on pro-active steps for better ships.

A lot of passenger ships in developed countries are now going to come on the block after this incident, because there is an inherent flaw in their design, which provokes such rapid flooding and then sinking. There is bound to be a major change in design, and that will include much stronger vertical segregation, as against the continuous decks so commonly seen nowadays on cruise ships of this sort.

And these old-design ships will land up, where else, but in our waters.

That’s the biggest risk we foresee.

(Veeresh Malik started and sold a couple of companies, is now back to his first love—writing. He is also involved actively in helping small and midsize family-run businesses re-invent themselves. Mr Malik had a career in the Merchant Navy which he left in 1983, qualifications in ship-broking and chartering, a love for travel, and an active participation in print and electronic media as an alternate core competency, all these and more.)

What I would like MUI to do . . .

Here's a wishlist of what I would like MUI to do for Indian seafarers, can you suggest more, or amendments, improvements, whatever?

# Single articles of agreement for seafarers on Indian flag ships, with the MUI-INSA agreement setting the terms & conditions as well as salary minima, between shipowner and seafarer. (If the seafarer is being paid more than the MUI-INSA agreement, then mention it on the articles.)

# Revive the concept of employment on Indian flag vessels, keeping in mind the new Service tax and TDS regulations.

# Involve MUI in the revised RPS Rules from DGS and from there coordinate it to FOSMA/MASSA and INSA companies of the better variety.

# Restore dignity for all at DGS, MMD, Shipping Master along the lines of model RTOs and offices at airports - both for the people working there as well as the clients, seafarers and others who need to come there.

# Initiate a vessel feedback system from Indian Masters/Mates and Chief Engineers/Engineers of ships visiting Indian ports with some element of confidentiality assured.

# Tighten up the examination system, including video recording of orals and online "no delay" writtens without restrictions on how many seats per centre. (For example, NOIDA/Delhi has only 40 seats vs 100s of candidates)

# Bring Delhi online for engine side endorsements. (Currently Delhi/NOIDA is only deck)

# Cleaning up the whole GMDSS mess.

# Take feedback on and update the syllabus for CoC exams from college lecturers and candidates.

# Work towards courses to be on dual shift per day basis to reduce time at colleges for seafarers on leave.

# Lay down insurance covers and underwrite additional salaries at 3x levels for seafarers who have been kidnapped, hijacked, pirated, held in jail = single salary to family, and double salary head in escrow till end of episode, plus post episode trauma care and support, on a scale that rises with duration.

# Instal a system of ship / owner / RPS Agent / other feedback from MUI members and share this open domain.

# Work towards more sensible safe manning levels for Indian flag, foreign flag visiting India and foreign flag with Indians onboard. Teach seafarers how to make cogent work-time studies towards presentation skills for improving quality of life onboard.

# Bring MUI into direct interaction with Customs, Immigration, Health and other agencies which interact with Indian seafarers in India.

# Increase death and disability compensation to minimum 20 years or balance of life potential employment levels.

+++

Appreciate more please?

What's your income tax and service tax status as an Indian seafarer?

Before you read further and before I proceed further, it is important to point out that this is by way of my understanding of a very complex subject drawn basis my research, and is in no way supposed to be an advisory or comment or guidance. PLEASE do consult your own tax advisor under all circumstances. I am not a professional tax person and this does not claim to be anything other than my views, issued without guarantee. This was the fine print.


+++


As a seafarer, when was the last time you looked closely at the TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) Certificate given to you by the shipowner, agent or shipmanagement company> Broadly, this could have been:-


# A Form 16 - which makes you, in aspects, an "employee" earning an "income" from the company or entity issuing you the Form 16. As per a variety of laws, rules and more, the said employer MUST also adhere to issues like leave wages, Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) adherences, Articles of Agreement while onboard ship if applicable, the MUI or IMB or similar agreement on perquisites, Income Tax Act and the various aspects thereof. No need, however, of worrying about Service Tax here - as of now, and to my best understanding, when working on Indian flag ships.


For those claining tax exemption on NRI status, and having no Form 16 or 16A, this may be helpful too, towards a better understanding of Section 5(2) and related.


http://taxworry.com/is-salary-received-in-nre-account-in-india-for-services-rendered-outside-india-by-a-non-resident-taxable-in-india/


# A Form 16A - which makes you, for this purpose, a recipient of either a "fees for professional or technical services" or "payments to contractors and sub- contractors". And here, you are most increasingly over the last few years, going to be liable for charging service tax to the company that made these payments to you.


+++


So, what's Service Tax in India all about, then?


Here are the FAQs on service tax:-


http://www.servicetax.gov.in/faq-29sept11.pdf


Q:- "Who is liable to pay service tax?
Ans:- Normally, the "person‟ who provides the taxable service on receipt of service charges is responsible for paying the Service Tax to the Government (Sec.68 (1) of the Act). However, in the following situations, the receiver of the Services is responsible for the payment of Service tax : (1) Where taxable services are provided by foreign service providers with no establishment in India , the recipient of such services in India is liable to pay Service Tax.


Q:- Are seafarers exempted?
Ans:- NO.


++++


Now, what is the shipping industry in India, doing about this?


++++


As far as the Indian National Ship Owners Association (INSA) is concerned, this judgement pertaining to Service Tax referring to them may be of interest, and please note, obviously service tax will apply to resident Indians also.


http://taxworry.com/is-salary-received-in-nre-account-in-india-for-services-rendered-outside-india-by-a-non-resident-taxable-in-india/


http://www.servicetax.gov.in/st-cirmainpg.htm


(quote) 


""Sub: Applicability of service tax on taxable services provided by a non-resident or a person located outside India to a recipient in India-reg.


Kind attention is invited to instruction F No. 275/7/2010-CX8A, dated 30.6.2010, wherein the Board had communicated its view that services tax on a taxable service received in India, when provided by a non-resident/person located outside India, would be applicable on reverse charge basis with effect from 1.1.2005, and that the ratio of judgement in M/s Indian National Shipowners Association (INSA) case [2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom)] would not apply to such cases. Further, direction was issued to field formations to defend the levy of service tax on such services for the period on or after 1.1.2005, as post INSA judgment, it has been held by the High Courts/Tribunal in a large number of cases, applying ratio thereof, that service tax on such services is leviable only w.e.f. 18.4.2006. However, the appeals filed by the department before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for defending the levy of service tax on such services w.e.f. 1.1.2005, have been dismissed recently (subsequent to the issuance of said instruction dated 30.6.2010) in the following cases.






(i) SLP (C) No. 29539 of 2010 in CCE Vs Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd


(ii) SLP (C)No. 18160 of 2010 in CST Vs Unitech Ltd


(iii) SLP (C) No. 34208/09 of 2010 in UOI Vs S R Batliboi & Co.


(iv) SLP (C)No. 328/332 of 2011 in UOI Vs Ernst & Young


(v) SLP (C) No. 25687-25688/2011 in CCE Vs Needle Industries


(vi) SLP (C) No. 25689-25690/2011 in UOI Vs SKM Engg Products






Further, Review Petition No. 1686 of 2011 filed in the case of Bhandari Hosiery has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18/8/2011.






2. In view of the aforementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India, would arise w.e.f. 18.4.2006, i.e., the date of enactment of section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Board has accepted this position. Accordingly, the instruction F No. 275/7/2010-CX8A, dated 30.6.2010 stands rescinded.






3. Appropriate action may please be taken accordingly in the pending disputes.


Yours faithfully,










(G. D. Lohani)


Director (Legal)


Copy for information to:


(i) Member (Budget)/Member (ST)


(ii) Joint Secretary (TRU-II)/Commissioner (ST)-CBEC"" 


(unquote)


+++


Please consult your rax advisor and PLEASE get opinions in writing. If your ship-owner company or ship-manager company or any of the multiple via medias in between say something else, then please take it in writing too.


AND please note:- dual "agreements" of the sort that are being used on Indian ships are just adding to your liabilities. Please be careful about those, also.


++++

Taxation and the Indian seafarer - NCV, FG, NRI - impact India and elsewhere . . .

While the plight of the Indian seafarer is slowly but steadily becoming one of the more important subjects on this medium, along with the subject of maritime fatigue and the larger effect it has on seafaring as a career option, another subject which draws the numbers is taxation.

This article written by me, almost a year ago, still draws in regular readership as well as questions:-

http://matescabin.blogspot.com/2010/11/so-are-you-nri-or-what.html

Aimed more at the NRI seafarer, spending 6 months or more at sea on foreign or Indian flag, there is still nothing new on the subject of how the new Direct Tax Code will impact the Indian seafarer seeking NRI status. At the same time, great movement in the world on international taxation and especially in context with the tax havens where shipping companies are often registered, is bringing major changes. And the Indian seafarer is not going to be immune from these vital changes.

So a word of caution - as a resident or an NRI seafarer working on foreign or Indian flag ships, the requirements to be fulfilled by the Indian seafarer were mainly as per Indian laws. This will change soon, has been changing, and very soon compliances of flag state of vessel, flag country of management company, flag country of vessel owner, and flag country of beneficiary owner, will also in many ways impact the status of the seafarer working onboard a ship.

To give two examples:-

1) You could be a resident of anywhere in India, but if your shipowner or shipmanager was from Maharashtra, then sure as day follows night, a deduction for Maharashtra State Professional Tax will be made in your accounts - especially if your articles, agreement and other documents were signed on a Mumbai address. (Whether the shipmanager or owner actually remitted that money to the Maharashtra Government or not is another question altogether . . .) It does not matter if the vessel was registered in Mumbai or Mongolia, you will pay a few hundred rupees every month.

2) The 'front" or even the beneficiary owner of your ship could be an entity whose eventual citizenship or domain is in any of the developed countries, after passing through one Flag of Convenience address and maybe one or two tax haven addresses, but eventually, the owners are individuals or corporates based somewhere. Their taxation adherences and evasions are increasingly being passed on to their custodians, employees, agents - and have you, especially as a Master, read about your liabilities lately? Not just pollution related . . .

+++

It is a very serious matter, this business of signing two or more contracts as a seafarer. Apparently, it has become the norm, especially on Indian ships, to sign one lower figure for the official Government articles and another higher figure as a separate agreement nullifying the first to some extent. And after showing it to friends in the IRS, their considered opinion is that it is a very dangerous matter, and needs to be investigated further.

Situation being like this:- what happens when the taxman uses the second agreement, loads it with all kinds of demands basis perceived income when in reality you may not even have been paid, and then presents you with a demand? Leave aside the sheer illegality of making a seafarer work on two separate agreements which is for the DGS to look into - where in the MSA does it say that an Indian seafarer on an Indian flag ship or otherwise has to sign two agreements?

To start with, and this needs to be implemented by all shipowners and management companies immediately, there should be only one agreement for one seafarer working on one ship. And that is the articles. If union wages are low, which they are, and a higher wage or salary has to be paid, which is often the case, then so be it - let the higher wages be reflected on the articles. There is no rule that prohibits this.

And you, as an individual seafarer, have everything possible to lose by signing two separate agreements for one job. Another view the income tax department can take is that you were actually due to get paid both amounts, so now sit and explain why you got paid only one, meanwhile please deposit . . . yes, it can happen.

+++

So here's a brief primer on the latest taxation scenario for seafarers working onships with all sorts of possible documents, and getting paid by legitimate means.

1) Are you an "employee" as defined by the company hiring you? In which case, you need to be on their rolls, get TDS deducted as an "employee", have EPFO subscriptions or equivalents and in general, satisfy the conditions applicable to other employees in the same company. That's a given. Yes, I know, the ship-owner and the ship-manager will convince you otherwise, but.

Since most seafarers on floating staff basis are not shown as employees by the shipping company or shipmanagement company, they don't realise it, but they as far as taxation is concerned end up being shown in the company's books as "consultants".

So now, it seems that you are a consultant, an Indian person in an Indian company, so what are your liabilities from the income tax point of view?

1) Nature of income as a consultant is classified as income from profit and gains of business. So now you start claiming deductions of expenses and depreciation while calculating the taxable income, which you can not, as an employee. Works fine, till the Income Tax authorities can ask you - where else were you a consultant. Nowhere else? Uh-oh, this can be classifed as income. Pay tax, no deductions for expenses and depreciations.

2) Books of accounts. Especially if you were claiming to be a "consultant" as an engineer. And remember, once you cross 15 lakhs, then all become mandatory.

3) Advance Tax. Ouch, forgot that one, almost?

And finally, very soon, expect all "consultancies" to come within the ambit of "service tax" too, which is not under Income Tax but Excise Department.

+++

Indian seafarers working in Indian companies are supposed to be under the protection of the Directorate General of Shipping, who are supposed to be looking after their welfare, not sending them into deeper trouble.

The root of this problem is the issue of dual (or even more) agreements between seafarer and shipowner/shipmanager. This has to be brought to an end right away.

And Indian seafarers working on Indian ships need to be employees, with proper tax adherences and the full protection that goes with it.

That's step-1 in improving matters for Indian shipping. Otherwise, if the shipowner and shipmanager couldn't care less about the people on board their ships, then the rest is somuch hot air.

++++

Defaulting RPS agents in India, and some info on Killick and Ind-Aust

As most of my seafaring and shipping friends in India should know, shipping companies and agents are prohibited by law from preventing or detering seafarers from gaining employment, and most certainly entities like FOSMA, MASSA and INSA and agency or ship-owning companies under them cannot use, as per Rule 3(d) ""no means, mechanism or list is used with the intention to prevent or deter seafarers from gaining employment.""

Here is the url:-

http://www.dgshipping.com/dgship/final/rules/ms_recruit_placement_seafarers_2005_Cov.htm

Read the whole thing but also please see 3-d, and in this case, in a similar related case relating to Killick Marine, whose RPS licence was expiring on the 17th of October 2011, and it is likely that the complaint about Killick Marine had been placed before that date.

58 Mumbai M/S. KILLICK MARINE SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI 9, Commercial Union House, 2nd Floor, 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400001. -- RPSL-MUM-039 18.10.2006 17.10.2011

+++

In addition, over the last few days, I have received copies of letters written by some companies to other companies "black-listing" seafarers. Along with this, I have received information about non-payment of dues, bad behaviour, demand of bribes by recruiting officers as well as others, and similar.

This blog proposes to start its own "Now Investigating List" of defaulting agencies and owners, and the opening names for "NIL companies" are:-

1) Killick Marine / Mumbai / RPS MUM 039
2) Ind-Aust / Mumbai /

More details will follow, as well as specific complaints.

All seafarers with complaints against agencies and shipowners in India are encouraged to get in touch with the undersigned in confidence.

Jai Hind, for better shipping from India!!

(ps: Just received a phone call from some chump saying that "Farshid Savaksha who is GM of Killick Marine in Mumbai has told me to tell you to remove Killick Marine's name from the list. Or . . .")

Or what else, chump? I actually want Farshid Savaksha's parents, family, friends, children and neighbours, and everybody else who knows him, to read this - Farshid Savaksha was and is responsible for ruining the career of a decent human being, and will now soon pay, in this world and the next, for his sins.

kêm-nâ mazdâ mavaitê pâyûm dadât
hyat mâ dregvå dîdareshatâ aênanghê
anyêm thwahmât âthrascâ mananghascâ
ýayå shyaothanâish ashem thraoshtâ ahurâ
tãm môi dãstvãm daênayâi frâvaocâ.

++++


To quote:-
The Respondents knew well that the DG Shipping is in very truth the statutory guardian of the Indian Shipping Industry, and guards jealously the standing of Indian seamen. To such an Officer an appeal invoking the larger interests of Indian shipping and Seamen could be nothing short of a provocation, a provocation to intervene and ensure Divekar's blacklisting. . . read on:-

http://matescabin.blogspot.com/2011/10/uasc-of-uae-and-kuwait-and-killick.html

It took Capt. Divekar 10-11 years to get justice, but at the end, despite lack of any support from the Unions or DG Shipping, he did get it. For years, we have been hearing about shipping agencies maintaining "blacklists" of Indian seafarers, especially in cases where seafarers who had not been paid, or had been sent to work on unseaworthy ships, or similar, chose to demand their rights. Now copies of these so-called "blacklists" are out in the open, and in most cases, reflect nothing more than the personal opinions based on petty desperation and revenge that some of these so-called "agencies" put out - in some cases almost like blackmail weapons against Indian seafarers. In this case, Killick Marine, one of the so-called oldest and most reputed agencies, is one of the respondents.

Some of us have made a recomendation to the DG Shipping in Mumbai and the Ministry of Shipping in Delhi, as well as to certain private trusts associated with Killick Marine's personnel in this case, to suspend Killick Marine's RPS licence till this investigation on how they ruined the life of Capt. Deepak Divekar is completed.

We urge you to read this 100 page submission. A copy of the award shall be placed online soon, but interim, the big question here is this:- who is spoiling the name of Indian seafarers, the corrupt amongst the agency companies where the truth on maritime recruitment is well known globally . . . or the poor suffering Indian seafarer who has to face battle at every step from training and recruitment onwards?

YOU be the judge.

++++

Complaints received against ship-management agencies in India (RPS under DGS 2005)

Over the last few weeks, and more over the last few days after publishing Deepak Divekar's article (said issue having now been escalated to offices of DGS and NA/Jahaz Bhavan, Mumbai) I have received more than a few emails and telephone calls from impacted seafarers. Some of these have simple solutions, which could be implemented by the DGS or Shipping Master with no effor, if they really cared about the goodwill of seafarers and their familes - as well as some amount of protection for themselves, especially in context with seafarers sailing through non-RPS or on non-Indian flag vessels.

http://matescabin.blogspot.com/2011/10/request-to-all-those-with-complaints.html

http://matescabin.blogspot.com/2011/10/blacklist-of-defaulting-owners-and.html

Typically, these are the issues faced:-

# Seizing or holding back of documents like passport, CDC, STCW certificates and other originals by "agents", without issuing receipts, and then demanding money for the return. All the more problematic when the agent is unable provide a position on a ship, and the seafarer is losing opportunity while waiting, at his own cost. This often forces seafarers to accept lower paid positions which are also not useful from a career point of view.

I spoke to some of the better agencies and owners, and they simply do not do this - choosing to keep soft-copies instead, EXCEPT when originals are needed for visas, in which case the documented procedure is different. However, this practice is rampant with the majority of "ghatiyaa" agents, and that is what spoils the name of the community.

Suggestion:- Seizure or holding of documents is a criminal offence, but not much you as a seafarer can do unless you have a receipt. DGS and Shipping Master should immediately issue an order or circular that RPS agents and shipping companies must issue a receipt before taking any original documents, otherwise photocopies or soft copies should suffice.

# Ship that the seafarer landed up on is not the one he was selected for or told about. This may be regardless of articles or agreements signed. And once in a foreign port, in the middle of nowhere, nothing much the seafarer can do except suffer it out. This can happen in or off Indian ports too.

Again, the better agencies and owners provide vessel and company specific briefing, sometimes lasting as long as 2-4 working days, before sending a person out. Others, the ghatiyaa lot, often don't know much about things themselves. A seafarer has every right to know about the ship he is going on before he leaves home port.

Suggesion:- Seafarer must be provided with full particulars of the vessel he is being sent on, including basic minimum data on class, P&I, condition, age, and principal particulars - including all known details of owners and bankers. Once this is done, it is up to the seafarer. By rights, this data should be available online also, as soon as an owner or agent has the LOI or brief to provide Indian seafarers on the ship, then all details MUST be available on the agents website as well as on DG Shipping's website. No details, no Indian seafarer, atleast not through DGS or RPS Agent.

# Salaries are not paid in time, accounts are not received, exchange rate clarity is not provided and worst of all - deductions as well as taxation are not suitably explained.

This is the most amazing part of things in this day and age, when communications are instantaneous, and salaries should be in seafarer nominated accounts by or on the last date of the month.

Suggestion:- DGS / Shipping Master should take an 'action taken' report on a regular monthly reporting basis, submitted to the DGS not later than 7th of the next month, that ALL pending dues have been actually cleared in all cases - and exceptions, if any, with reasons, are to be listed vessel and person-wise.

# There was one salary indicated in the India office. There was another salary indicated in the contract signed. There was yet another salary in the articles. And then there was yet another different salary paid onboard. In addition, the joining date was w.e.f. the date the person joined the ship, rather than from the day he was confirmed for departure or actually departed.

The better companies who want to attract and retain better people tend to address this issue in a more reasonable way. But here again, it is the "ghatiyaa" agencies which spoil the industry's name.

Suggestion:- It should be made clear to the seafarer HOW MANY different agreements he shall have to be party to at the beginning itself, and he needs to be able to decide for himself if he wants to join or not. In advance.

# Vessel is sailing to or through piracy areas, and owner / operator is not relieving the seafarer.

Suggestion:- Your life and family's peace of mind is worth more than all the money you can earn. Pick up the phone, VHF, whatever, and call the Port Control, if your company is not getting you off the ship, and there is no help forthcoming from DGS / MMD / Shipping Master.

+++

More follows. There is suddenly a spate of articles required on FOC vessels after the grounding of the MSC chartered RENA off New Zealand (Astrolabe reef).

Who is more corrupt, "us" or "them"? (Supply/demand side practicalities of corruption)

The easiest thing too do is to go into a self-flagellation mode on corruption. Oh, hai hai, we are a very corrupt people, race, country. But have you though - is it possible to be corrupt without the tools for corruption?

I am particularly proud of this article, along with the others on processed food, and dedicate it to my seafarer brethren. Please read, pass it on, comment. . . thanks.

http://www.moneylife.in/article/corruption-bad-tax-evasion-good-cooking-the-books-bestmdasha-basic-primer-from-transparency-international/20239.html

""Here is a simple number—The World Bank has endorsed estimates that in 2009, illicit financial flows out of developing countries were to the tune of $850 billion to $1 trillion. These were as provided by Global Financial Integrity (GFI), which made a strong case to interpolate TI's figures on supply-side corruption. It was done to understand, where the corruption money went, where did it go in, and more importantly, who or what motivated it. Likewise, it is estimated that the narcotics economy from mainly developing countries reached anything between $650 billion to about $1.1 trillion per annum in 2010—figures collated from various sources-so, where did it enter the global financial network?""

""let us simplify matters. In a typical scenario, who is more corrupt, who is guiltier—a sex worker selling her body in Falkland Road, Mumbai, for whatever reason, or the customer who pays for it, for whatever reason too? Or is it the landlord, the pimp, the cops, or the system that makes it possible for this transaction to take place? Who is more corrupt? In a typical scenario, we have all been programmed to blame the bottom end of the food chain, and believe that the person selling her body, is corrupt, but we know that is not really correct. It is like calling a bottle of liquor evil. ""

""evolved something called the "Financial Secrecy Index", which listed out on scientific empirical evidence a graded list of countries, where it was easiest to park stolen assets—to put it simply. And not just did these countries simply provide the facility for parking stolen assets—they actively and aggressively went about seeking these stolen assets, in most cases actively conniving with corrupt "supply side" countries and regimes worldwide. And then, to ensure that these stolen assets could not be tracked back, they made laws of their own which simply prevented any... transparency.""

If you've got so far, you may also want to read this . . . http://treasureislands.org/ . . . especially in the context of . . . who or what does own all those FOC ships, then?

First hand view from an Indian flag ship . . .

Here's a copy of the letter I wrote to DG Shipping and others a few
days ago, in context with this business of different letters
pertaining to service onboard Indian flag ships.
1) The "articles of agreement" which is the official document that
will hold for all legal purposes. This is between the shipowner, the
Master and you and is what is the document required under the Merchant
Shipping Act.
2) The "appointment / agreement", call it what you want, between
somebody else and you. Usually a "manning agent" who is working under
the same MSA but under the RPS Rules which were issued by DGS!!!
+++
To: The DG Shipping, Govt. of India, Jahaz Bhavam, Mumbai.
cc: The Nautical Advisor,Govt. of India, Jahaz Bhava, Mumbai.
dtd:- 21st September 2011
Greetings & Jai Hind!!
As you may be aware, seafarers joining Indian flag ships typically
sign atleast two documents, if not more, pertaining to their
conditions of emplotyment on board, wages, terms and conditions,
taxation,benefits, insurance covers, and other related elements.
1) Articles of employment as seafarer, an official legal document
issued by the Government of India, and signed by the seafarer, Master
and shipowner. Wages shown here are to be atleast as per IMB/MUI
agreement. There is nothing that prevents higher wages or benefits
being paid to seafarers in this.
2) Another "agreement" or "contract" signed with the RPS agent which
is totally at variance with the above. Wages shown here are different
from MUI, and contradict the basic tenets of the MSA, the laws of the
country, the taxation issues,IMB/ MUI agreement, as well as any form of
natural justice. In addition, this appears to be intensely one-sided
against the seafarer, and is reportedly also filed with the office of
the DG Shipping - especially when performed by RPS Agents.
In the first instance, I would like to know if the office of the DG
Shipping is aware that such dual agreements are now almost an accepted
fact of life, apparently endorsed by the office of the DG Shipping,
Government of India, by reasons of common practice over the last few
years.
In the second instance, I would like to know what the office of the DG
Shipping proposes to do about this, since it appears to be a rather
untenable and unsustainable practice, not covered under any part of
the Merchant Shipping Act as well as against all basic laws pertaining
to employment as well as other related factors therein, which I shall
be glad to outline if you so desire.
I look forward to your early reponse on this subject, and thank you
for your kind co-operation.
Sincerely . . .
___
___
Obviously, the DGS has not responded, it willtake an RTI to get them
to respond. But meanwhile, from onboard an Indian flag vessel, the
sub-standard work conditions and total sweatshop attitude continues to
prevail. Salary cuts are arbitary, working conditions terrible, and
there appears to be a fear generated atmosphere onboard which was
never there before.
+++
I know much more on what ails Indian shipping now - and only wish it
was made compusory for ALL peope ashore in shipping, especially in
government as well as IRS, MMD, teaching, Port State Control and
similar, to go to sea for 3-6 months every five years.
On Indian flag ships.
THAT would really wake them up.
In my case, the bedbugs on board this ship have woken me up, I am out
in 5-6 days. That, and the crummy company on board - the ChEng, with
hardly 2 weeks under his belt, is moving on too.
+++