A manufacturing company was preparing to import a 65-tonne production machine into India for a new industrial facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The equipment was expensive, the installation schedule was already committed, and the factory team had planned commissioning around a fixed delivery date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Three logistics companies submitted quotations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One project cargo forwarder quoted almost \u20b91.8 lakh less than the other two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From a procurement point of view, the choice looked straightforward. The ocean freight was competitive, the transporter said the cargo could be handled, and the shipment was awarded to the lowest bidder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The machine reached the Indian port without any major issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The problem started after discharge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the heavy-haul team prepared the equipment for inland movement, it discovered that one flyover on the planned route did not provide enough clearance for the loaded trailer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The original route assessment had not properly considered the final loaded height.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A second route had to be studied. The hydraulic trailer remained on standby. Port storage continued. The crane booked at the factory had to be rescheduled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Within a few days, the possible additional project cost crossed \u20b95 lakh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The company had saved \u20b91.8 lakh while awarding the shipment, but the project had already lost much more during execution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is why choosing a project cargo freight forwarder in India<\/a><\/strong> should not be treated like buying normal freight capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Project cargo requires technical planning before commercial award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For heavy machinery, transformers, ODC cargo, pressure vessels, industrial plants, generators and production equipment, the most important question is not:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Who has given the cheapest freight?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The better question is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Who can prove that the complete movement is technically executable?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n A capable project cargo freight forwarder in India should be able to plan and coordinate the shipment from the supplier’s location to the final project site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This includes reviewing cargo dimensions and weight, deciding between flat rack, open top or breakbulk shipping, obtaining carrier acceptance, selecting the correct Indian port, conducting route surveys, planning heavy-haul trailers, coordinating ODC permissions, preparing Customs documents, arranging lifting equipment and managing final unloading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The freight forwarder should also be able to explain the risks before the shipment is awarded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n India’s Major Ports handled more than 915 million tonnes of cargo in FY2025-26, while JNPA handled approximately 1.13 million tonnes of breakbulk cargo during the same year. India has substantial infrastructure for industrial and project cargo, but every oversized shipment still needs to be engineered individually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Standard container freight is relatively predictable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a manufacturer is importing 20 pallets that fit inside a 40-foot container, the main planning normally revolves around container availability, vessel schedule, documentation, Customs clearance and final delivery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Project cargo is different.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A machine weighing 40 tonnes may fit on a flat rack from a weight perspective but may still create problems because the load is concentrated on a small footprint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A transformer may be accepted by the shipping line but become difficult to transport inland because of bridge capacity or overhead electrical lines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A 22-metre-long industrial module may travel successfully for 400 km and still fail to enter the factory because the final gate does not provide enough turning radius.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is why project cargo planning has to connect international freight with engineering, ports, roads, cranes and site conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For procurement teams, the freight forwarder’s real capability is demonstrated by how these risks are identified before the cargo begins moving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the first documents a project cargo forwarder should request is the final packed drawing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Manufacturers sometimes share equipment dimensions before export packing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That can be dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Suppose a machine itself measures:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 10.80 m x 2.35 m x 2.70 m<\/p>\n\n\n\n After the supplier adds a steel base, export packing, protective structure and lifting supports, the final cargo becomes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 11.00 m x 2.55 m x 2.95 m<\/p>\n\n\n\n That additional 20 cm of width may appear small.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Operationally, it can change the entire shipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The machine may move from an In-Gauge category to Out-of-Gauge cargo. That can affect vessel slots, carrier approval, lashing requirements, terminal handling and inland movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The forwarder should therefore confirm final packed length, width, height and gross weight before the shipping method is finalised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Centre of gravity and lifting points are equally important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For expensive machinery, the final packed drawing should be treated as one of the most important logistics documents in the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Flat racks are widely used for oversized industrial cargo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A typical 40-foot flat rack may provide a platform length of approximately 11.63 metres and width of about 2.44 metres. Published maximum payload examples can reach approximately 47,000 kg, subject to carrier and terminal acceptance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This does not mean every 46-tonne machine can automatically move on a 40-foot flat rack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Weight alone is not enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The forwarder needs to consider the cargo footprint, load concentration, centre of gravity, lashing design, overall dimensions and terminal handling restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine a 46-tonne industrial machine concentrated mainly in the middle of the flat rack.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even though the gross weight may remain within a published equipment limit, excessive point loading could make the proposed arrangement unsuitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is why procurement should ask the forwarder to explain the load plan instead of accepting a simple statement that the cargo “fits on flat rack.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Open-top containers may be more appropriate where excess height is the main challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For much heavier or larger equipment, breakbulk or specialised project cargo shipping may be required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The correct solution depends on the actual cargo rather than the equipment that happens to be cheapest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These three categories have a major impact on project cargo cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In-Gauge cargo remains within the operational dimensions of the selected equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Out-of-Gauge cargo extends beyond normal container dimensions in width, height or length.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Breakbulk cargo generally moves outside the standard containerised system because the equipment is too large, too heavy or unsuitable for conventional container handling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The difference matters because OOG cargo may consume more vessel space than the physical container suggests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A flat rack may occupy one container platform, but if machinery extends significantly beyond both sides, neighbouring vessel slots may not be usable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The shipping line therefore prices the lost space as part of the shipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is one reason why project cargo freight quotes can vary significantly between carriers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A project cargo freight forwarder should be able to explain this difference clearly instead of presenting one unexplained lump-sum freight figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A common project cargo mistake is assuming that once a shipping line approves the cargo, the difficult part is finished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In reality, ocean approval is only one stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Certain carrier inland networks in India restrict flat rack or Out-of-Gauge equipment even when the same cargo has been accepted for ocean transportation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This creates three separate questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Has the shipping line approved the ocean leg?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Has the terminal approved the handling requirements?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Can the cargo physically and legally move from the port to the final project site?<\/p>\n\n\n\n All three need positive answers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A cargo owner should never assume that a confirmed Bill of Lading route automatically means the equipment can move to an inland ICD or factory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is particularly important when the shipment involves OOG cargo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A route survey is one of the strongest indicators of project logistics capability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, not every route survey is equally useful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A weak survey may simply show:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Port to factory – 310 km – route feasible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That information is not enough for a 70-tonne or 5-metre-high cargo unit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A proper route survey should examine bridge conditions, road width, flyovers, overhead electrical lines, railway crossings, toll plazas, median openings, gradients, sharp turns and final factory access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The team also needs to consider the loaded trailer height rather than cargo height alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, a machine may be 4.1 metres high.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After placing it on a low-bed trailer, the total movement height may become 5 metres or more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is the height that needs to pass below bridges and overhead structures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A 190 km road may look ideal on Google Maps, but if one bridge cannot support the axle load, another route of 260 km may be safer and commercially better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before awarding a major project shipment, procurement should request actual evidence of route planning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Useful deliverables include a route survey, obstruction register, critical bridge review and alternative route.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Very heavy machinery may require low-bed trailers, multi-axle hydraulic trailers or modular transportation systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trailer selection is not simply based on total tonnes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Load distribution matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A 100-tonne machine spread across a large base behaves differently from a 100-tonne transformer with concentrated load points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hydraulic axle systems help distribute cargo weight across several axle rows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n India’s National Highway framework for specified ODC and overweight movements places importance on declared trailer configuration, axle-row loading and bridge conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Under applicable rules for certain modular hydraulic trailer movements, serious violations involving loads beyond permitted parameters can lead to consequences such as a 7-day hold, significant penalties and restrictions on the transporter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is why a project cargo forwarder should define the trailer plan before vessel arrival.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Waiting until cargo is already discharged at the port to decide how many axles are required is a poor project strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bidder should be able to explain the trailer configuration and load-distribution logic before the shipment is awarded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The nearest port is not always the best project cargo port.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, the port offering the lowest ocean freight may not provide the lowest overall project cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n India has significant heavy and breakbulk cargo infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n JNPA handled approximately 1.13 million tonnes of breakbulk cargo in FY2025-26, compared with about 493,000 tonnes in the previous financial year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That represents growth of roughly 129%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n JNPA has also handled individual breakbulk movements of approximately 1,667 tonnes, demonstrating the scale of cargo that can be managed through major Indian gateways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Chennai Port provides another example.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The port has 27 berths, approximately 136 MMTPA handling capacity and around 100 acres of open storage. Its project cargo capabilities include machinery, windmill components, railway wagons and earth-moving equipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These numbers are important, but port selection should still be shipment-specific.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The forwarder should evaluate vessel compatibility, terminal handling, storage space, lifting requirements, Customs, inland route and distance to the project site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A properly managed project cargo movement should be planned as one connected operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The project should be controlled from origin pickup to final placement, not treated as separate ocean and road shipments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Customs clearance should begin before the vessel arrives in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n High-value industrial machinery often requires better technical documentation than general commercial cargo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the invoice simply says “industrial machinery” for equipment worth \u20b98 crore, Customs may require additional information to understand the correct classification and function.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A project cargo Customs file may need technical brochures, machine specifications, model details, package breakup and supporting classification information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n India’s National Time Release Study recorded an overall average seaport import release time of approximately 79 hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mundra recorded around 55 hours 34 minutes, Nhava Sheva approximately 72 hours 50 minutes, and Chennai around 88 hours 42 minutes in the study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These numbers should not be treated as guaranteed project cargo timelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Complex industrial shipments can take longer if questions arise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The real lesson becomes clearer when Customs queries are compared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No-query seaport shipments averaged approximately 74 hours 40 minutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shipments with one query averaged about 169 hours 45 minutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Multiple-query shipments exceeded 256 hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The difference between a clean shipment and one query is close to 95 hours, or almost four days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For a normal cargo shipment, four days is inconvenient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For a project cargo movement with a hydraulic trailer, crane team and installation schedule waiting, four days can become very expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Documents should support both Customs and physical execution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Commercial Invoice and Packing List remain important, but project cargo normally needs additional technical information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For large projects, each responsibility should also have an owner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Procurement should know who is responsible for technical documents, carrier approval, road permissions, Customs, cranes and site preparation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Return to the 65-tonne machinery shipment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cheaper forwarder saves \u20b91.8 lakh at quotation stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the incomplete route survey creates additional work after cargo arrival.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Assume the additional exposure becomes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trailer standby – \u20b91.2 lakh<\/p>\n\n\n\n Storage and additional port handling – \u20b91.5 lakh<\/p>\n\n\n\n New route survey and route modification – \u20b91 lakh<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crane rescheduling – \u20b91.5 lakh<\/p>\n\n\n\n Total:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u20b95.2 lakh<\/p>\n\n\n\n These numbers are illustrative project assumptions rather than market tariffs, but they demonstrate an important commercial principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Saving \u20b91.8 lakh on freight has little value if execution risk creates \u20b95.2 lakh in additional cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Project cargo procurement should therefore compare total executable cost<\/strong>, not just freight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A project cargo forwarder should also understand lifting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A common mistake is assuming that a crane rated for 100 tonnes can lift any cargo weighing less than 100 tonnes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crane capacity changes with boom length, working radius, counterweight configuration and ground conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A 90-tonne machine positioned far from the crane centre may require significantly more lifting capacity than its weight alone suggests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For critical equipment, the forwarder should arrange a proper lift plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plan should identify the cargo weight, centre of gravity, lifting points, crane location, sling arrangement and working radius.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The phrase “suitable crane will be arranged” is not enough for a high-value industrial machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Project cargo delivery does not finish when the trailer reaches the factory road.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The last 200 metres can sometimes be more difficult than the previous 500 km.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The site team should check gate width, gate height, internal road conditions, turning radius, ground strength, crane positioning area and unloading location.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the equipment needs to move inside a building, additional skidding or jacking may also be required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine a 22-metre-long module successfully completing a 450 km ODC journey but being unable to turn through the factory entrance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Technically, the road movement succeeded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Commercially, the project failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Final-site feasibility should therefore be included before shipment award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Project cargo quotations should be broken into work packages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A single lump-sum number makes comparison difficult.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One bidder may include crane mobilisation while another excludes it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One may include route survey and permits while another lists them as extra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another may provide freight only up to the port.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The commercial comparison should normally separate ocean freight, special equipment, terminal handling, lashing, route engineering, ODC transport, permissions, crane work, Customs clearance, storage exposure and final unloading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Procurement should pay particular attention to exclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is often where unexpected project costs appear later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Assume two ports are being evaluated for an imported industrial machine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Port A offers ocean freight that is \u20b91.5 lakh cheaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Procurement naturally prefers Port A.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the inland route from Port A needs additional civil preparation and a longer hydraulic-trailer movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The additional inland cost becomes \u20b94 lakh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The final logistics cost through Port A is therefore around \u20b92.5 lakh higher despite the cheaper ocean freight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Port selection should be based on total delivered project cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The best gateway is the port that provides the strongest combination of vessel access, handling capability, route feasibility and inland cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most heavy machinery moves by sea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, air freight can still play an important role in project execution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A \u20b950 crore production line may reach the factory by sea, but commissioning could be delayed because one small control panel or electronic component is missing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If a \u20b95 lakh spare component is preventing the plant from starting production, air freight may be commercially justified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Project logistics should therefore consider the overall project schedule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Main equipment may move by sea while urgent spares, commissioning tools or electronic components move by air.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The objective is not simply to minimise freight cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The objective is to protect the project completion date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A project cargo forwarder should be able to demonstrate the complete movement before execution begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Procurement should expect answers to questions about cargo engineering, carrier acceptance, route feasibility, trailer configuration, Customs documentation and final unloading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main evidence should include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the forwarder cannot clearly explain these areas before award, a lower price should not automatically make the bid more attractive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A professional project cargo forwarder coordinates many different specialists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The forwarder may work with overseas suppliers, shipping lines, port terminals, Customs brokers, heavy-haul transporters, crane companies, authorities and the customer’s engineering team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The forwarder does not necessarily need to own every vessel, crane or hydraulic trailer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What matters is whether the company can properly engineer, coordinate and control the complete movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For a \u20b920 crore or \u20b950 crore machine, the buyer should focus on execution capability, responsibility and visibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Project freight forwarding is ultimately project management applied to cargo movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Selecting a project cargo freight forwarder<\/a> <\/strong>in India <\/strong>is a technical and commercial decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n India has substantial infrastructure for heavy and industrial cargo. Major Ports handled more than 915 million tonnes in FY2025-26, and JNPA alone handled approximately 1.13 million tonnes of breakbulk cargo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But port capacity does not remove shipment-level risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A successful project cargo movement still depends on accurate packed dimensions, correct shipping equipment, carrier acceptance, terminal capability, route surveys, axle-load planning, ODC permissions, Customs readiness, crane engineering and final-site access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most expensive mistake often begins before the cargo moves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It begins when a shipment is awarded to the cheapest freight quotation without proving that the complete movement can actually be executed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before awarding a project shipment, ask the forwarder to show the route, equipment, approvals, lifting strategy and final delivery plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A few lakhs saved during freight negotiation can easily be lost if one bridge, crane, permit or Customs query is discovered too late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For high-value project cargo, proper planning is not an additional logistics cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is what protects the entire project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udcde +91 97174 65454<\/strong>AI Overview Quick Answer<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why Project Cargo Requires a Different Logistics Approach<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Start With Final Packed Dimensions, Not Supplier Estimates<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Can the Cargo Really Move on a Flat Rack?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In-Gauge, OOG and Breakbulk Cargo<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ocean Approval Does Not Mean the Complete Movement Is Approved<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What a Proper Route Survey Should Look Like<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Trailer Selection and Axle-Load Planning<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Choosing the Right Indian Port<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Project Cargo Logistics Process<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Stage<\/th> Main Activity<\/th> Main Risk<\/th><\/tr> Cargo engineering<\/td> Confirm dimensions, weight and CoG<\/td> Incorrect data<\/td><\/tr> Equipment study<\/td> Flat rack, open top or breakbulk<\/td> Wrong shipping method<\/td><\/tr> Route survey<\/td> Port to project site<\/td> Route obstruction<\/td><\/tr> Carrier approval<\/td> Ocean booking confirmation<\/td> Cargo rejection<\/td><\/tr> Terminal approval<\/td> Port handling acceptance<\/td> Handling limitation<\/td><\/tr> Customs planning<\/td> Technical and commercial documentation<\/td> Customs query<\/td><\/tr> ODC permission<\/td> Road movement approval<\/td> Permit delay<\/td><\/tr> Port handling<\/td> Loading on heavy trailer<\/td> Lifting risk<\/td><\/tr> Inland transport<\/td> Heavy-haul movement<\/td> Bridge or road restriction<\/td><\/tr> Site delivery<\/td> Entry and final positioning<\/td> Site not ready<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Customs Clearance for Project Cargo<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Project Cargo Documentation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Document<\/th> Why It Matters<\/th><\/tr> Commercial Invoice<\/td> Value, product details and Customs classification<\/td><\/tr> Packing List<\/td> Package count, dimensions and weight<\/td><\/tr> Final packed drawing<\/td> Route and equipment planning<\/td><\/tr> Technical catalogue<\/td> Product function and HS classification<\/td><\/tr> Bill of Lading<\/td> International transport<\/td><\/tr> Route survey<\/td> Inland feasibility<\/td><\/tr> Lift plan<\/td> Crane and lifting arrangement<\/td><\/tr> ODC permission<\/td> Road movement<\/td><\/tr> Insurance<\/td> Cargo risk protection<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Study: \u20b91.8 Lakh Cheaper, \u20b95.2 Lakh More Expensive<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Crane Planning Is More Technical Than It Looks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Final-Site Survey Is Equally Important<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How Project Cargo Cost Should Be Compared<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Case Study: The Cheapest Port Is Not Always the Cheapest Route<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
When Air Freight Can Support a Project<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What Procurement Should Evaluate Before Awarding the Shipment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Role of a Project Cargo Freight Forwarder<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\ud83d\udce7 wecare@cargopeople.com<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n