crates constituted three COGSA packages, even though there were numerous individually wrapped smaller parcels inside the crates. 694 F.2d at 613-14. And in Omark Industries v. Associated Container Transportation, 420 F.Supp. 139 (D.Or.1976), the court held that six palletized units, not the 20 to 26 cardboard cartons inside each palletized unit, were the COG-SA packages. The palletized units consisted of a cardboard shell concealing the cartons within and attached to wooden pallets by means of metal straps. Id. at 142. The court asserted that pallets are not analogous to large metal shipping containers, id. at 143, and also made the following pertinent observation: It should be noted that it is not usually the smallest packaged unit incorp ion, 720 F.2d 629, 630-31 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); Allied International American Trading Corp.
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 holding that where bill of lading indicated 1320 cartons but did not indicate that the cartons were consolidated onto 52 pallets the 1320 cartons were the cogsa packages holding that where bill of lading stated both the number of palletized master cartons and the number of smaller cartons inside the palletized master cartons the smaller cartons were the cogsa packages because the palletized master cartons were analogous to shipping containers holding that 30 pallets were the cogsa packages where the bill of lading stated that there were 30 packages