fin...le fin?
JM...you're probably right even tho cynical. As pilots, we still have a little control left and some of that lies in deeper audit of the NOTOC. If you have any suspicions with ANY cargo we carry, you can always ask for the airway bill/the bill of laden. This sometimes detailed document will have the origin, sender, purchaser and cargo breakdown. I have offloaded, shark fin on a frequent basis, even when the fin was annotated as "dry fish product". The airway bill will not include species of fin but at the moment there are 6 shark species that need trans continent CITES3 permits for cargo: if we can't ascertain the sub/species then I have always assumed the worst and gone for the offload. Subsequent tea and biccies with fleet office has always resulted in..."well, if we don't carry it, then another carrier will..."...once again the lemming management effect where no one has the balls to make a decision. This system of audit works particularly well out of all the Indonesian ports where cargo corruption is rife and false labelling also the case. Be very careful that grouper fry isn't coral, (destination TPE and Japan for the coral jewellery trade), turtle, isn't green, Hawksbill or leatherback..again via HKG for China/Japan?Taiwan markets.
Even if it means OTP compromise, I will often physically inspect suspect cargo...do the same and you'll be suprised what you'll find.
I suggest that the company will need this 3 month lead to establish sound principle in banning fin but also to re label the product. Since it has already travelled as DRY FISH PRODUCT, I would suggest a reversion to this, with the obvious ramifications of becoming corrupt product with other dry goods.
Its a good move by CX either way you look at it..they garner the respect of the conservationists and can also recover the potential of high earning freight but slipping it under a carpet label that most crews will find confusing to detect.