B-125124, NOV. 18, 1955

B-125124: Nov 18, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

BILL OF LADING N 6245406 WAS ISSUED MARCH 26. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CORRECT CHARGES WERE $440.34. THE OVERPAYMENT OF $43.40 WAS RECOVERED BY DEDUCTION FROM THE CHARGES OTHERWISE DUE ON YOUR BILL 30650. WAS DISALLOWED IN THE CITED SETTLEMENT. YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS BASED UPON THE THEORY THAT A MIXED CARLOAD OF COMMODITIES SUBJECT TO RULE 34 OF THE CLASSIFICATION. YOU ASSERT THAT THE CITED SETTLEMENT WAS IN ERROR. SINCE THE SHIPMENT WAS TRANSPORTED IN A 50-FOOT 6 -INCH BOX CAR BUT THE MINIMUM WEIGHT PROVIDED IN RULE 34 FOR THAT SIZE CAR WAS NOT PROTECTED. THE RULES PROMULGATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO GOVERN THE CONSTRUCTION AND FILING OF FREIGHT RATE TARIFFS AND CLASSIFICATIONS ARE CONTAINED IN I.C.C.

B-125124, NOV. 18, 1955

TO G. B. SMITH, AUDITOR OF REVENUES, THE VIRGINIAN RAILWAY COMPANY:

CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOUR REQUEST OF MARCH 21, 1955, FILE 6055 LT, FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF DECEMBER 1, 1954, IN CLAIM TK-531519, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $43.40, THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED BECAUSE OF AN OVERPAYMENT MADE ON YOUR BILL 25708, IN CONNECTION WITH BILL OF LADING N 6245406.

BILL OF LADING N 6245406 WAS ISSUED MARCH 26, 1948, TO COVER THE SHIPMENT OF 30,140 POUNDS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN A 50-FOOT 6-INCH BOX CAR FROM THE NAVAL BASE STATION, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, TO THE NAVAL AIR STATION AT NORFOLK, VIRGINIA. FOR THE SERVICE, YOU COLLECTED CHARGES OF $483.74. IN THE AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER HERE, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CORRECT CHARGES WERE $440.34, COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXCEPTION TO RULE 10 OF THE CLASSIFICATION CONTAINED IN ITEM 408 OF THE TRUCK LINE TARIFF BUREAU EXCEPTIONS TARIFF 90-K, AGENT W. S. CURLETT'S I.C.C. NO. A 848. THE OVERPAYMENT OF $43.40 WAS RECOVERED BY DEDUCTION FROM THE CHARGES OTHERWISE DUE ON YOUR BILL 30650, AND YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL 33657 (25708), RECLAIMING THAT AMOUNT, WAS DISALLOWED IN THE CITED SETTLEMENT.

YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS BASED UPON THE THEORY THAT A MIXED CARLOAD OF COMMODITIES SUBJECT TO RULE 34 OF THE CLASSIFICATION, WHEN CONSIDERED FOR RATING PURPOSES AS TWO OR MORE SEPARATE CARLOADS UNDER AN EXCEPTION TO RULE 10, REMAINS SUBJECT TO THE GRADUATED SCALE OF MINIMUM WEIGHTS IN RULE 34. FOLLOWING THIS THEORY, YOU ASSERT THAT THE CITED SETTLEMENT WAS IN ERROR, SINCE THE SHIPMENT WAS TRANSPORTED IN A 50-FOOT 6 -INCH BOX CAR BUT THE MINIMUM WEIGHT PROVIDED IN RULE 34 FOR THAT SIZE CAR WAS NOT PROTECTED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CARLOAD CLASSIFICATION RATINGS PROVIDED FOR CERTAIN ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SHIPMENT SUBJECTED THEM TO THE GRADUATED MINIMA PROVIDED IN RULE 34.

THE RULES PROMULGATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO GOVERN THE CONSTRUCTION AND FILING OF FREIGHT RATE TARIFFS AND CLASSIFICATIONS ARE CONTAINED IN I.C.C. TARIFF CIRCULAR 30 AND AMENDMENTS. RULE 4 (I) THEREOF, UNDER THE HEADING "MINIMUM WEIGHTS," PROVIDES THAT WHEN MIXED CARLOAD SHIPMENTS OF TWO OR MORE ARTICLES IN THE SAME CAR ARE AUTHORIZED, THE TARIFF MUST SHOW THE MINIMUM WEIGHT TO BE APPLIED. RULE 10 OF CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 17 AND THE EXCEPTION THERETO IN ITEM 408 OF TARIFF 90-K, APPLIED IN THE COMPUTATION OF CHARGES IN THE CITED SETTLEMENT, PERMIT COMPUTATION OF THE AGGREGATE CHARGE FOR A MIXED CARLOAD AS IF THE ARTICLES WERE DIVIDED INTO TWO OR MORE SEPARATE CARLOADS, AND SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT---

"WHEN THE TWO OR MORE SEPARATE CARLOADS ARE LOADED IN ONE CAR THE MINIMUM WEIGHT FOR EACH SEPARATE CARLOAD SHALL BE THAT APPLICABLE FOR CAR OF LENGTH NOT IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET 7 INCHES.'

ALTHOUGH THE CLASSIFICATION RATINGS APPLICABLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL ARTICLES COMPRISING THE SHIPMENT MAY HAVE INCLUDED CARLOAD MINIMA SUBJECT TO THE GRADUATED SCALE IN RULE 34, BOTH RULE 10 AND THE EXCEPTION TO RULE 10 IN ITEM 408 PROVIDE A METHOD FOR COMPUTING CHARGES WHICH INCLUDES A SPECIFIC DIRECTION AS TO THE APPLICABLE MINIMA, THEREBY EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDING THE USE OF THE GRADUATED MINIMA IN RULE 34. YOUR BASIC PREMISE, WHICH FAILS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISION OF THE EXCEPTION TO RULE 10, APPEARS TO BE IN ERROR.

THE CITED SETTLEMENT, WHICH WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXCEPTION TO RULE 10, IS SUSTAINED.