LiveMint of The Wall Street Journal points out that a shipping firm in India is finding ways to evade regulators and taxes:

Mercator Lines Ltd, India’s second biggest private shipping firm, has registered more vessels outside the country in a bid to skirt tight local regulations while trying to reap the benefits of tonnage tax, a levy based on the cargo capacity of ships that reduces maritime companies’ tax burden.

The Mumbai-based firm has registered four dredgers, which it purchased in the past year, in the Comoros, an island nation in the Indian Ocean off the eastern coast of Africa, said an official at the directorate general of shipping, the maritime regulator.

I always wonder when I see ships that have city names on them whether there is really any actual association. What is needed to authenticate a ship as genuinely from a port-of-call? Nothing, apparently.

All the ships have been registered outside India directly, without opening a subsidiary in either Marshall Islands or the Comoros.

By doing this, Mercator can hire officers and crew from any part of the world, unlike ships registered in India, which have had to employ only Indian nationals. Last week, the regulator eased the clause on hiring only Indian nationals, but ship owners say strict conditions still apply to employment of foreigners.

Easy to see why the loophole is so attractive, and the irony now of course is that Mercator has to request the authorities treat these non-Indian ships as equal to Indian ships. The question is how a regulatory body should respond when a Mercator ship arrives with an international crew and “Domoni” stenciled on its stern. Their identity profile is different, so should they be authorized?

This seems similar to the debate over yacht tax loopholes in America these days. A typical story runs like this:

Jack Darcy of Redmond paid cash for a $2.2 million yacht through a Lake Union dealership last April, but he didn’t pay a dime in Washington sales taxes.

Instead, the retired corporate executive saved $200,000 by signing papers to buy his snazzy new 73-foot yacht three miles off Washington’s coast, in international waters.

[…]

Before California state law changed last month, resident boat owners needed only to keep their craft away from California for 90 days after purchase. Then they could sail home and never pay a sales tax. Most went to Mexico and were dubbed the 90-day yacht club.

In California the regulators then passed a rule called Chapter 226 that extended the time away from 90 days to a full year. Reports showed closing the so-called “sloophole” had little negative impact.

The state’s official Legislative Analyst’s Report concluded that the temporary one-year law had not resulted “in the sharp reduction in vessel-related sales that some had feared.” According to the report, the law resulted in a $20 million increase in state and local tax revenues from yacht sales made to California residents.

Strangely enough, even though the Republican Governor called on the state to close the gap permanently, he found little support from his party. An LA Times editorial painted a disturbing picture:

Like the characters in some hippie-era pop song, many Republican lawmakers in Sacramento have decided to let this troubled world fend for itself while they sail away to some imaginary shore. On yachts. After dodging their taxes

…or like characters in maritime law who like to ply the International waters as a path to alter their identity just long enough to escape a duty before returning “home” to lay claim to local privileges.

The Star Tribune brings to light some interesting facts surrounding the death of a sailboat racer:

Development tycoon George Mitchell donated the Cynthia Woods and an identical boat to Texas A&M University in 2006, the Galveston County Daily News and Houston Chronicle reported Thursday.

The university has taken the other boat, the George Phydias, out of commission until officials can determine whether a design defect caused the keel failure.

The company that built the boats, North Carolina-based Cape Fear Yacht Works, said in a statement Wednesday it stands by its products. The company is owned by George Mitchell’s son, Keith.

“We believe in the design, construction and safety of our vessels,” the company said.

It also said it was not responsible for maintenance or repair work after the vessel left the factory. ha

The “ha” at the end is in the original article. Strange, no? But more to the point, the fact that the father was buying boats from his son’s boat manufacturing company and donating them to a University raises some interesting questions. Those questions are compounded by suspected safety defects in construction.

All boat owners realize sooner or later that boats, like any vehicle, require regular maintenance and care to maintain safety. It is the father-son relationship of the donation and “tycoon” status of the donor, as well as the time-line, that make this story seem like more than just a simple tragedy.

A recent edition of Sailing Magazine mentions that the tycoon’s son was entirely new to the boat-building business:

The Cape Fear 38 is built in Wilmington, North Carolina, not far from its infamous namesake. Kent Mitchell, owner of Cape Fear Yacht Works, spent years racing and cruising the Carolina sounds and coasts before deciding to build his own version of the perfect racer-cruiser. While many of us fantasize about building boats, Mitchell jumped into the business with both feet. And he is enthusiastic about his product. “If racing is in your blood but you also want some creature comforts, then this is a boat you need to consider,” he said as we test-sailed hull No. 1 on a crisp Chesapeake Bay afternoon.

Hull number one? Jumped into the business? The father of the builder purchased and then donated not one but two $300K 38 foot boats when they were only two years old? I also noted that the base price went from $199K to $295K in just two years. Maybe the cost rise suggests that early versions were under-built? Prone to failure?

Nothing says Australia like a few jokes in a Financial Review about sex:

However you intend to put them to use, the new P9521 mobile handset from Porsche has impressive privacy credentials.

Nothing says “I love you (and I don’t want to know all about the other lovers)” quite like giving your cheating husband a mobile phone with a biometric lock on it.

Or, if your partner is not quite so long-suffering, nothing says “I want to protect my spouse (and while I’m at it, me) from the embarrassment of having my many indiscretions exposed by the ever-curious kiddies” quite like buying yourself such a mobile phone – one which locks itself after 15 seconds of inactivity (if only your zipper could enjoy such a respite), and which requires a swipe of your finger before it will unlock.

Culture obviously plays a big part in designing security controls, as well as figuring out how to market them. This story reminds me of the time I had dinner at the Tornado worlds in France. The Australian crew was constantly giggling as they tried to send phone-porn videos via bluetooth to each other and anyone else they could find who happened to have an insecure connection.

The article does not even touch upon the fact that this phone will utilize screen-lock technology far more efficiently than keypads, thereby offering a safer and more user-friendly alternative.