B-119714, MAR. 1, 1956

B-119714: Mar 1, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

TO THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT. YOU CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $612.70 FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATE OF $3.48 PER 100 POUNDS. IN THE AUDIT OF THIS PAYMENT IT WAS DETERMINED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION THAT THE PROPER CHARGE WAS $478.34. THE RESULTING OVERPAYMENT OF $126.27 WAS COLLECTED BY DEDUCTION IN MAKING PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE YOU. THE CARLOAD RATE IS INAPPLICABLE. YOU REFER TO RULES 15 AND 16 OF CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 16 AND URGE THAT AS PICK-UP WAS PERFORMED BY THE ORIGINATING CARRIER OR ITS AGENT. THAT WHEN PROPER ALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED ON THE SHIPMENT COVERED BY THE AMERICAN SALES BOOK CO.

B-119714, MAR. 1, 1956

TO THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT, IN CLAIM NO. TK-154179 (YOUR FILE G-12-F-24633), WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $126.27 AS A PART OF THE CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR TRANSPORTING 26,967 POUNDS OF BRASS PIPE NIPPLES, UNPLATED, FROM TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, TO OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, UNDER BILL OF LADING N5 122048, SEPTEMBER 1, 1944.

YOU CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $612.70 FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATE OF $3.48 PER 100 POUNDS, REDUCED BY LAND -GRANT DEDUCTIONS TO $2.27202. THEREAFTER, UPON PROOF OF EXPORTATION, YOU REFUNDED $8.09, REPRESENTING THE PORT ALLOWANCE, WHICH REDUCED THE AMOUNT PAID TO $604.61. IN THE AUDIT OF THIS PAYMENT IT WAS DETERMINED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION THAT THE PROPER CHARGE WAS $478.34, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A RATE OF $2.44 PER 100 POUNDS, REDUCED BY LAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS TO $1,59445 PER 100 POUNDS APPLIED TO A CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 30,000 POUNDS. THE RESULTING OVERPAYMENT OF $126.27 WAS COLLECTED BY DEDUCTION IN MAKING PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE YOU.

IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU ALLEGE THAT THE CONSIGNOR REQUESTED AND RECEIVED PICK-UP SERVICE AT ORIGIN AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE CARLOAD RATE IS INAPPLICABLE. YOU REFER TO RULES 15 AND 16 OF CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 16 AND URGE THAT AS PICK-UP WAS PERFORMED BY THE ORIGINATING CARRIER OR ITS AGENT, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1/B) OF RULE 15 PRECLUDE APPLICATION OF THE CARLOAD RATE. YOU CITE THE CASE OF AMERICAN SALES BOOK CO. V. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD ., 263 I.C.C. 511, AS SUPPORTING YOUR CONTENTION.

CONCERNING THE AMERICAN SALES BOOK CO. CASE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION INDICATED IN THE CASE OF CRANE CO. V. ALTON R. R. CO., 268 I.C.C. 511, THAT WHEN PROPER ALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED ON THE SHIPMENT COVERED BY THE AMERICAN SALES BOOK CO. CASE, WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CARLOAD RATE, THE CHARGES IN EXCESS OF THOSE FOR A MINIMUM CARLOAD WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL. THE AMOUNT SOUGHT IN THE AMERICAN SALES BOOK CO. CASE WAS $36.48. THAT CASE INDICATES THAT THE SMALL AMOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARGES COMPUTED ON THE LESS- THAN-CARLOAD RATE AND THOSE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE CARLOAD RATE WAS A FACTOR IN EVALUATING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD CHARGES COLLECTED.

IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE CLAIMING $604.61 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT WEIGHING 26,967 POUNDS, BEING 3,033 POUNDS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 30,000 POUNDS, ON WHICH CHARGES OF $478.34 WERE ASSESSABLE. THUS, YOU ARE CLAIMING OVER 26 PERCENT MORE REVENUE FOR TRANSPORTING A SHIPMENT WEIGHING 26,967 THAN FOR A SHIPMENT WEIGHING 30,000 POUNDS.

CRANE CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 268 I.C.C. 511, INVOLVING THE CLASSIFICATION RULE ON WHICH YOU RELY TO SUSTAIN CHARGES BASED UPON THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SAID THAT COMPARED WITH THE CHARGES FOR A MINIMUM CARLOAD, THE COMPLAINANT HAD TO PAY 87 PERCENT GREATER CHARGES FOR 39 PERCENT LESS WEIGHT; THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE SHIPMENT WERE NOT UNUSUAL; THAT SIMILAR RESULTS WILL OCCUR UNDER THE RULE WHENEVER PICK-UP OR DELIVERY SERVICE IS PERFORMED ON A SHIPMENT WHICH COMPRISES A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF A CARLOAD, AND THERE IS A LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CORRESPONDING CARLOAD AND LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES; AND THAT SUCH AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE IS "PATENTLY UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE," WHEN IT RESULTS IN THE EXACTION OF CHARGES WHICH "ARE EXTORTIONATE, UNJUST, AND UNREASONABLE.'

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THERE FOUND THAT THE CHARGES BASED ON THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATE WERE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXCEEDED THE CHARGES FOR A MINIMUM CARLOAD AT THE CARLOAD RATE, PLUS THE USUAL CHARGES FOR UNLOADING THE ACTUAL WEIGHT SHIPPED. AND SEE ALSO CARNATION CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 269 I.C.C. 470, WHERE THE COMMISSION STATED THAT THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE CHARGES WAS SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO CREATE DOUBT AS TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DIFFERENCE; THAT SIMILAR RESULTS WOULD ENSUE WHENEVER PICK-UP AND LOADING SERVICE IS PERFORMED ON A SHIPMENT THAT WEIGHS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THE CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT, AND WHEN THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CARLOAD AND LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATE; AND THAT NO JUSTIFICATION APPEARS FOR THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE INVOLVED WHEN, AS IN THE INSTANCE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT RESULTS IN THE APPLICATION OF CHARGES WHICH PATENTLY ARE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE.

IT APPEARS, THEREFORE, THAT IF, AS YOU URGE, PICK-UP SERVICE AT ORIGIN WAS RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SHIPMENT, THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES CLAIMED BY YOU TO BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE OF SUCH PICK-UP SERVICE WOULD BE CLEARLY IN THE CATEGORY OF CHARGES WHICH "PATENTLY ARE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE" AS SAID IN THE CARNATION COMPANY CASE, OR WHICH ARE "EXTORTIONATE, UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE," AS SAID IN THE CRANE CASE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXCEEDED THE CHARGES ON A CARLOAD BASIS.