But others are sceptical, some recalling the old Safe Freight Initiative in which they found scanning every container was easer said than done. Today the 100 per cent screening mandate has been toned down to a more "layered approach", ie, profiling.

　　To Mr Koch's mind having dockside terminals do the weigh-ins would comply with the United Nations rule demanding Verified Gross Mass of each container to be known before loading.

　　At various times in his career, Mr Koch has been general counsel of Sea-Land Service Inc and served as chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission.

　　"It is not evident to me what problem the Coast Guard would have with this," Mr Koch told IHS Media.

　　But the US Coast Guard has not responded to enquiries and their attitude has been confused on the issue - at times washing their hands of an enforcement role, leaving it to ports, and then insisting the weigh-in rule applies July 1 ready or not.

　　The Port of Charleston, says that such a dockside weigh-in scheme is practical, and that it is willing to do it. But Savannah, Virginia and New York-New Jersey are not.

　　As Mr Koch, a lawyer, sees it, the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention allows it, without a VGM provided by the shipper.

　　Apart from the inconvenience of performing a task that has nothing to do with loading and unloading ships, a big worry terminals share is legal is responsibility.

　　The UN rule assigns the responsibility to the shipper on the bill of lading, and terminals worry about their liability for inaccuracies if they have to do the weigh-ins.

　　And at that late date, what do you do with the overweight box? It is bound to cause a degree of congestion, perhaps a great deal more in some ports like Dhaka or Luanda where equipment is poor.

　　But the Port of Charleston says the existing weighing processes could simply substitute for a shipper-generated VGM created earlier in the supply chain.

　　The situation is similar to the problems imposed in 2010 with the American Safe Freight Initiative, which for a time demanded 100 per cent screening of all US-bound containers.

　　Tests in the Port of Southampton revealed the steep costs of full implementation. "This measure would disrupt trade and cost legitimate EU and US business and a lot of time and money while no real benefit is proved when it comes to improving security," an EU report on the tests.

　　The Congressional US General Accountabilty Office study concurred: "At the pilot ports Qassim, Pakistan, Puerto Cores, Honduras and South Hampton, poor image quality and equipment breakdowns also contributed to frustrations. As CBP officials upgraded programme with new technologies and expanded the list of pilot ports to include Hong Kong, Busan and Salalah, with high transshipment volumes, participants complained that costs rose and efficiencies declined."

(Source:shippingazette)