a common carrier for purposes of COGSA, but underlying carriers ... treat [the NVOCC] as [the cargo owner’s] agent”); Carman Tool & Abrasives, Inc. v. Evergreen Lines, 871 F.2d 897, 901 (9th Cir.1989) (“Parties who do not deal with the carrier directly have a responsibility to obtain a copy of the bill of lading if they have an interest in knowing its terms. We decline to place on the carrier the burden of tracking down these remote parties and advising them of the terms of the bill of lading.”); Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. S/S Am. Argosy, 732 F.2d 299, 301 (2d Cir.1984) (“With respect to the vessel and her owner ... the NVOCC is an agent for the shipper, and thus merely a customer ....”) (citation omitted); Jockey Int’l, Inc. v. M/V LEVERKUSEN EXPRESS, 217 F.Supp.2d 447, 457 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>); Glyphics Media, Inc. v. M/V CONTI SINGAPORE,
holding that terms of bill of lading apply to shipper where it brings suit thereunder holding that bill of lading not charterparty governed contract dispute between carrier and shipper holding that forum selection clause in a bill of lading issued to an nvocc binds the cargo owner because the nvocc acted as the cargo owners agent in accepting the bill of lading holding that bill of lading issued as to two containers was binding as to third container which was stolen and as to which no bill of lading issued provided that the bill of lading in evidence was the standard form bill of lading that carrier always used holding that the parties designated the number of packages in the bill of lading when they filled in the numbers 18 103 and 165 under the column heading no of pkgs