B-141870, APR. 27, 1960
Highlights
INC.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27. FOR THIS SERVICE YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID FREIGHT CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $806.40 COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A RATE OF $5.76 PER 100 POUNDS AND A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 14. ON AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER IN OUR OFFICE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CHARGES SHOULD BE COMPUTED UPON A CLASS-55 TRUCKLOAD RATE OF $3.17 PER 100 POUNDS AND A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 20. THE RESULTING OVERPAYMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERED BY DEDUCTION. YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE WAS REQUESTED. WAS DENIED BY OUR CERTIFICATE OF SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 18. ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE BILL OF LADING WAS NOT ANNOTATED AS REQUIRED BY ITEM NO. 370 OF ECMCA MOTOR FREIGHT TARIFF NO. 32A.
B-141870, APR. 27, 1960
TO MASTEN TRANSPORTATION, INC.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 1960, IN WHICH YOU IN EFFECT REQUEST REVIEW OF OUR DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM PER SUPPLEMENTAL BILL FOR ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $172.40 ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, JET PROPULSION, WEIGHING 5,080 POUNDS, FROM MIDWEST CITY, OKLAHOMA, TO DOVER AIR FORCE BASE, DOVER, DELAWARE, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. AF-7026823 DATED AUGUST 30, 1957.
FOR THIS SERVICE YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID FREIGHT CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $806.40 COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A RATE OF $5.76 PER 100 POUNDS AND A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 14,000 POUNDS. ON AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER IN OUR OFFICE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CHARGES SHOULD BE COMPUTED UPON A CLASS-55 TRUCKLOAD RATE OF $3.17 PER 100 POUNDS AND A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 20,000 POUNDS AS PROVIDED IN EASTERN CENTRAL MOTOR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION, MOTOR FREIGHT TARIFF NO. 32A. THE RESULTING OVERPAYMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERED BY DEDUCTION. YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE WAS REQUESTED, WAS DENIED BY OUR CERTIFICATE OF SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 18, 1960, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE BILL OF LADING WAS NOT ANNOTATED AS REQUIRED BY ITEM NO. 370 OF ECMCA MOTOR FREIGHT TARIFF NO. 32A, WHICH READS:
"EACH BILL OF LADING COVERING SHIPMENTS FOR WHICH EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE IS PROVIDED MUST BE MARKED OR STAMPED AS FOLLOWS:
"EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE ORDERED BY SHIPPER. --------------------- --
SHIPPER'S SIGNATURE" "
IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU ARGUE THAT EXCLUSIVE USE SERVICE WAS REQUIRED BY THE FOLLOWING NOTATION ON THE BILL OF LADING.
"SEAL TINKER NO. 6500 APPLIED BY SHIPPER AT LOADING POINT. THIS TRAILER TO MOVE FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION UNDER THE ABOVE SEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TELEPHONE INSTRUCTIONS TO MR. MAUPIN (FRT CO) DO NOT BREAK UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT COORDINATION WITH THE TO, TINKER AIR FORCE BASE"
AND, THEREFORE, THAT THE CHARGES FOR EXCLUSIVE USE ARE JUSTIFIED.
THE SPECIAL CHARGES FOR EXCLUSIVE USE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNLESS THE BILL OF LADING IS ANNOTATED IN AT LEAST SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TARIFF REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE A PART OF THE TARIFF AND CANNOT BE WAIVED. CLARK THREAD COMPANY, INC. V. PILOT FREIGHT CARRIERS, INC., 62 M.C.C. 185, 89; GUS BLASS CO. V. POWELL BROS. TRUCK LINE, 53 M.C.C. 603. THE MERE FACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS SEALED AND INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN THAT THE SEALS WERE NOT TO BE REMOVED DOES NOT JUSTIFY CHARGES HIGHER THAN ARE APPLICABLE TO TRUCKLOAD OR VOLUME SHIPMENTS. GUS BLASS CO. V. POWELL BROS. TRUCK LINE, SUPRA.
SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN PAID ON THE BASIS OF TRUCKLOAD RATES IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES ARE AUTHORIZED. ACCORDINGLY, IT APPEARS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM WAS CORRECT AND IT IS SUSTAINED.
WE ASSUME SETTLEMENT ACTION ON THE 18 SIMILAR CLAIMS LISTED ON THE ATTACHMENT TO YOUR LETTER HAS BEEN OR WILL BE TAKEN CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS SAID ABOVE.