B-128878, JUN. 13, 1957
Highlights
CARPENTER: WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 23. IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE TRANSPORTATION WAS FURNISHED. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION. THAT THE RATE QUOTATIONS YOUR CLIENT OFFERED THE GOVERNMENT WERE INVALID AND THE HIGHER TARIFF RATES WERE APPLICABLE. THE IDENTICAL OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF UNION FREIGHTWAYS BY ONE OF ITS ATTORNEYS. THEY WERE CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED IN OUR DECISIONS B-128878 OF DECEMBER 3. SINCE YOU HAVE ADVANCED NOTHING IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CONTENTIONS WHICH WE HAVE NOT ALREADY CONSIDERED. OUR PRIOR CONCLUSIONS ARE AGAIN AFFIRMED. IT IS NOTED THAT GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING WAS GRANTED IN THE HUGHES TRANSPORTATION CASE. THEY WILL BE COLLECTED BY OTHER APPROPRIATE MEANS.
B-128878, JUN. 13, 1957
TO MR. HOMER S. CARPENTER:
WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 23, 1957, AND EARLIER LETTERS, RELATIVE TO OVERPAYMENTS STATED AGAINST UNION FREIGHTWAYS, OMAHA, NEBRASKA. YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 23, 1957, RELATIVE TO UNION FREIGHTWAYS BILL NO. 4658, CONCERNS A TYPICAL CASE.
YOU OBJECT TO OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION'S USE, IN COMPUTING THE ALLOWABLE CHARGES, OF A RATE QUOTATION, SUPPLEMENT NO. 3, EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1954, TO RATE TENDER NO. 85, VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO THE UNITED STATES BY YOUR CLIENT. RELYING UPON HUGHES TRANSPORTATION, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 121 F.SUPP. 212, YOU URGE THAT NEBRASKA STATE LAW, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE TRANSPORTATION WAS FURNISHED, DID NOT PERMIT THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE UNITED STATES AT LOWER-THAN-TARIFF RATES. IT IS YOUR CONTENTION, THEREFORE, THAT THE RATE QUOTATIONS YOUR CLIENT OFFERED THE GOVERNMENT WERE INVALID AND THE HIGHER TARIFF RATES WERE APPLICABLE.
THE IDENTICAL OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF UNION FREIGHTWAYS BY ONE OF ITS ATTORNEYS, JAMES E. RYAN, OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARRIER'S RATE TENDER NO. 84. THEY WERE CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED IN OUR DECISIONS B-128878 OF DECEMBER 3, 1956, AND MAY 14, 1957, ONE COPY OF EACH ENCLOSED. SINCE YOU HAVE ADVANCED NOTHING IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CONTENTIONS WHICH WE HAVE NOT ALREADY CONSIDERED, OUR PRIOR CONCLUSIONS ARE AGAIN AFFIRMED. IT IS NOTED THAT GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING WAS GRANTED IN THE HUGHES TRANSPORTATION CASE, AND A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION EVENTUALLY MAY BE REACHED.
THE OVERPAYMENTS SHOULD BE REFUNDED PROMPTLY; OTHERWISE, THEY WILL BE COLLECTED BY OTHER APPROPRIATE MEANS.