B-145946, MAR. 2, 1962

B-145946, MAR. 2, 1962

TO THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF MAY 15 AND DECEMBER 4, 1961, FILE REFERENCE G-615383, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT (TK 668910) WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL G-615383-A FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF $124.16 ON THE SHIPMENT OF BOMB FIN ASSEMBLIES MOVING FROM PINE MEADOW, CONNECTICUT, TO PORT CHICAGO, CALIFORNIA, WITH A STOP FOR TRANSIT AT BELLEMONT, ARIZONA, UNDER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS SECTION 22 QUOTATION 16-F. SUBSEQUENT TO THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW, WE RECEIVED YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL 615383-B INCREASING YOUR CLAIM TO $432.45 ON THE SHIPMENT.

THE RECORD HERE SHOWS THAT ON THE FREIGHT MOVEMENT FROM BELLEMONT, ARIZONA, TO PORT CHICAGO, CALIFORNIA, UNDER BILL OF LADING WZ-T-114116, YOUR COMPANY ORIGINALLY ASSESSED AND WAS PAID CHARGES TOTALLING $869.49. IN OUR AUDIT IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT THE CHARGES WERE OVERPAID AND UPON THE FAILURE OF YOUR COMPANY TO REFUND THE NOTICES OF OVERPAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNTS OF $226.11 AND $308.29, THESE AMOUNTS WERE DEDUCTED FROM BILLS OF YOUR COMPANY FOR OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.

IN REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT YOU SUGGEST THAT THE QUESTION INVOLVED ON THIS SHIPMENT IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THAT CONSIDERED IN OUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 18, 1960, OUR FILE REFERENCE B 142460. IN THAT CASE, HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE BILLED WEIGHT OF THE INBOUND FREIGHT MOVEMENT MOVED FORWARD FROM THE TRANSIT POINT IN TWO SHIPMENTS AND THE CHARGES PAID INBOUND DID NOT INCLUDE PAYMENT FOR DEFICIT WEIGHT. THE QUESTION ON THE INSTANT SHIPMENT, ALTHOUGH INVOLVING A DIFFERENT SECTION 22 QUOTATION, SEEMS TO INVOLVE A QUESTION SIMILAR TO THAT RAISED IN YOUR LETTERS OF FEBRUARY 14, 1961, FILE G 632616, AND OF MAY 19, 1961, FILE G-631487, INVOLVING THE CREDIT TO BE TAKEN FOR THE CHARGES PAID ON THE DEFICIT WEIGHT OF THE INBOUND FREIGHT MOVEMENT. AS POINTED OUT IN OUR DECISIONS OF OCTOBER 4, 1961, B-145860, AND DECEMBER 14, 1961, B-145925, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROVISIONS IN THE QUOTATION TO COVER A SITUATION OF THIS TYPE, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT CREDIT FOR THE INBOUND CHARGES TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE THROUGH CHARGES ON THE TRANSITED WEIGHT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRANSIT TONNAGE TO THE CHARGES PAID ON THE ACTUAL INBOUND WEIGHT.

IN OUR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE SHIPPING RECORD, HOWEVER, WE HAVE DEVELOPED INFORMATION THAT THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT WAS EXPORTED TO YOKOHAMA, JAPAN, ON OCTOBER 23, 1952 (SEE ATTACHED COPY OF LETTER FROM THE MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AGENCY DATED 30 OCTOBER 1961). THUS, AND CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS IN UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 145 CT.CL. 619, THE EXPORT RATE APPEARS PROPER FOR APPLICATION IN COMPUTING THE CHARGES ON THE THROUGH PORTION OF THE SHIPMENT. THE ALLOWABLE CHARGES ACCORDINGLY WILL BE RECOMPUTED CONSISTENT THEREWITH AND A SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT ISSUED IN DUE COURSE.