B-140328, OCT. 26, 1960

B-140328, OCT. 26, 1960

TO MISS SHARON E. ERDKAMP:

ON AUGUST 2, 1960, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FORWARDED TO US, FOR REVIEW AND FURTHER CONSIDERATION, A RECLAIM VOUCHER FILED BY YOU FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF SHIPPING YOUR AUTOMOBILE FROM CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, TO NAPLES, ITALY, IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR TRANSFER FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO ROME, ITALY, PURSUANT TO FOREIGN SERVICE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION NO. 8-08826, DATED MAY 14, 1958.

OUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 19, 1959, DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM (Z-1982787) FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE REASON THAT YOU ACCOMPLISHED THE SHIPMENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO ITALY BY MEANS OF A FOREIGN FLAG VESSEL IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 901 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. 1241 (A). UPON OUR REVIEW OF THE MATTER, INCIDENT TO YOUR REQUEST OF JULY 15, 1959, WE HELD THAT THE ABOVE STATUTORY PROHIBITION AND THE FOREIGN SERVICE TRAVEL REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE FACTUAL SITUATION INVOLVED; AND, YOU WERE ADVISED IN OUR DECISION B-140328 OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1959, THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF JUNE 19, 1959, PERTAINING TO THAT PART OF YOUR CLAIM COVERING THE ACTUAL COST OF THE OCEAN SHIPMENT OF THE CAR WAS SUSTAINED FOR THE REASON THAT AMERICAN FLAG VESSELS WERE AVAILABLE FROM THE PORT (BALTIMORE, MARYLAND) NEAREST THE POINT WHERE YOUR TRAVEL ORIGINATED (WASHINGTON, D.C.). OUR HOLDING WAS BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151.3A OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE MANUAL, WHICH WERE QUOTED THEREIN.

THE RECLAIM VOUCHER WAS SUBMITTED BY YOU TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WITH A REQUEST THAT SHIPMENT OF YOUR AUTOMOBILE FROM YOUR RESIDENCE BE APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 180 FSTR 3.1B (1) WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"WHEN TRANSFERRED WHILE ON DUTY AT POST OR ON LEAVE AT OWN EXPENSE, TRAVEL AND PER DIEM FOR EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY, AND TRANSPORTATION OF EFFECTS FROM OLD POST TO NEW POSTS; IF OLD POST IS WASHINGTON, WHERE A NEWLY APPOINTED EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED FOR DUTY, TRAVEL AND PER DIEM FOR EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY FROM WASHINGTON, AND TRANSPORTATION OF EFFECTS AND UNACCOMPANIED BAGGAGE FROM PLACE OR PLACES OR RESIDENCE (AT TIME OF APPOINTMENT) AND/OR WASHINGTON TO NEW POST.'

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN FORWARDING THE RECLAIM VOUCHER TO OUR OFFICE ACCEDED TO YOUR REQUEST AND HAS APPROVED THE SHIPMENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE FROM OMAHA, NEBRASKA (AUTOMOBILE ACTUALLY LOCATED AT WOODSTOCK, ILLINOIS) SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF YOUR CLAIM BY OUR OFFICE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SHIPMENT WAS EFFECTED ON FOREIGN FLAG VESSEL.

WE GATHER FROM YOUR STATEMENT ATTACHED TO THE RECLAIM VOUCHER THAT YOU FEEL THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF SHIPMENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE FROM YOUR RESIDENCE, OMAHA, NEBRASKA, WILL BRING INTO OPERATION OTHER INSTRUCTIONS PERTAINING TO SHIPMENT OF EFFECTS (INCLUDING AUTOMOBILE) FROM THE PORT NEAREST YOUR RESIDENCE, THAT IS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. IN THAT CONNECTION SECTION 151.3 OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE MANUAL--- WHICH IS FOR GUIDANCE ONLY AND IS NOT A PART OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE TRAVEL REGULATIONS- -- PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

"STANDARDS FOR SHIPMENTS OF EFFECTS ON FOREIGN FLAG CARRIERS

"POSTS SHALL EXERT REASONABLE EFFORT TO ANALYZE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS ON A WORLD-WIDE BASIS IN ROUTING EFFECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:

"A. WHEN BOTH AMERICAN SHIPS AND FOREIGN SHIPS OPERATE DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE PORT NEAREST THE PLACE WHERE THE OFFICIAL TRAVEL ORIGINATES AND THE PORT NEAREST THE AUTHORIZED DESTINATION, SHIPMENT OF EFFECTS SHALL BE MADE ON AN AMERICAN SHIP.

"B. WHEN AMERICAN SHIPS DO NOT OPERATE DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE PORT NEAREST THE PLACE WHERE OFFICIAL TRAVEL ORIGINATES AND THE PORT NEAREST THE AUTHORIZED DESTINATION, AND FOREIGN SHIPS DO SO OPERATE, SHIPMENT OF EFFECTS SHALL BE MADE ON A FOREIGN SHIP.'

APPARENTLY, YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR AUTOMOBILE WAS SHIPPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (B) OF THE ABOVE-QUOTED INSTRUCTIONS, THERE BEING NO AMERICAN SHIPS OPERATING FROM CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, TO NAPLES, ITALY, AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT OF SUCH AUTOMOBILE.

OUR DECISIONS CONCERNING SECTION 901 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, AS AMENDED, WHICH STATUTE REQUIRES OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES TRAVELING OVERSEAS TO TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT THEIR EFFECTS ON AMERICAN REGISTRY SHIPS, WHEN AVAILABLE (UNLESS THE NECESSITY OF THE MISSION REQUIRES USE OF A FOREIGN FLAG VESSEL) HAVE PERMITTED USE OF FOREIGN VESSELS IN CERTAIN CASES WHEN IT APPEARED THAT THE USE OF AN AMERICAN VESSEL WOULD RESULT IN TRANSSHIPMENTS "AT EXCESSIVE EXTRA COST AND DELAY.' ALSO, SUCH DECISIONS HAVE STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 901, ECONOMY ALONE GENERALLY MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON AS BASIS FOR USING FOREIGN VESSELS. SEE 31 COMP. GEN. 351; 36 ID. 53.

HERE THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT ANY EXCESSIVE DELAY WOULD HAVE OCCURRED HAD THE AUTOMOBILE BEEN SHIPPED BY RAIL TO BALTIMORE FOR TRANSSHIPMENT ON AN AMERICAN VESSEL. MOREOVER, WE HAVE ASCERTAINED THAT THE AUTOMOBILE AND TWO CASES OF PARTS AND ACCESSORIES COULD HAVE BEEN SHIPPED BY RAIL FROM WOODSTOCK, ILLINOIS, TO BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, AT A COST OF $241.80 INCLUDING PORT CHARGES AT BALTIMORE. THAT AMOUNT WHEN ADDED TO OCEAN FREIGHT OF THE AUTOMOBILE AND ACCESSORIES FROM BALTIMORE TO NAPLES OF $488.40, MAKES A TOTAL OF $730.20. WHILE THESE FIGURES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE EXACT THEY DO INDICATE THAT THE COST OF SHIPMENT BY AMERICAN VESSEL WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS THAN $200, OR APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD MORE, THAN THE COST OF SHIPMENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE BY FOREIGN VESSEL. IN OUR VIEW THAT ADDITIONAL COST IS NOT SO EXCESSIVE AS TO WARRANT AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 901 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED, PARTICULARLY SINCE AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED ECONOMY ALONE MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON AS A BASIS FOR USE OF A FOREIGN VESSEL. MOREOVER, WE POINT OUT THAT THE USUAL METHOD OF SHIPMENT OF EFFECTS OR TRAVEL OF PERSONS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO EUROPE IS BY LAND TRANSPORTATION TO PORTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES, THENCE BY AMERICAN VESSEL TO DESTINATION IN EUROPE.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND STATEMENT OF OUR VIEWS YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OCEAN FREIGHT PAID FOR THE SHIPMENT OF SUCH AUTOMOBILE AND ACCESSORIES FROM CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (WHERE AN AMERICAN SHIP WAS NOT AVAILABLE) MUST AGAIN BE DENIED.

CONCERNING YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 22, 1960, WHICH WE REGRET HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ANSWERED, YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT THE ONLY CLAIM FROM YOU BEFORE US IS THE ONE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS DECISION.