B-125955, OCT. 16, 1956

B-125955: Oct 16, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER. YOU CONTEND THAT THE COMBINATION OF RATES USED IN THE SETTLEMENT HERE CANNOT APPLY AS YOUR COMPANY IS NOT PARTY TO NIAGARA FRONTIER TARIFF BUREAU TARIFF NO. 66-B. WHICH WAS USED IN OUR AUDIT TO COMPUTE THE ALLOWABLE CHARGES ON THE INVOLVED SHIPMENT. THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION WAS DELIVERED SEPTEMBER 29. WAS UNROUTED EXCEPT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE INITIAL CARRIER IN THE BILL OF LADING. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE INITIAL CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO ROUTE THE SHIPMENT BEYOND ITS OWN LINE SO AS TO AFFORD THE SHIPPER THE BENEFIT OF THE LOWEST AVAILABLE CHARGE. THE AMOUNT ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND PAID WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY APPLICABLE FOR.

B-125955, OCT. 16, 1956

TO WESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER, FILE D/B BILL 53-1215, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST REVIEW OF A SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED JUNE 25, 1955, IN CLAIM TK-528070, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR $45.40, AS ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MOVING FROM TORONTO, CANADA, TO OTTUMWA, IOWA, UNDER BILL OF LADING WV-9358442, IN SEPTEMBER 1952. YOU CONTEND THAT THE COMBINATION OF RATES USED IN THE SETTLEMENT HERE CANNOT APPLY AS YOUR COMPANY IS NOT PARTY TO NIAGARA FRONTIER TARIFF BUREAU TARIFF NO. 66-B, WHICH WAS USED IN OUR AUDIT TO COMPUTE THE ALLOWABLE CHARGES ON THE INVOLVED SHIPMENT.

THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION WAS DELIVERED SEPTEMBER 29, 1952, TO THE COLVILLE CARTAGE COMPANY, AT TORONTO, FOR FORWARDING TO OTTUMWA, AND WAS UNROUTED EXCEPT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE INITIAL CARRIER IN THE BILL OF LADING. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE INITIAL CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO ROUTE THE SHIPMENT BEYOND ITS OWN LINE SO AS TO AFFORD THE SHIPPER THE BENEFIT OF THE LOWEST AVAILABLE CHARGE. MURRAY COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC. V. MORROW, INC., 54 M.C.C. 442, 444; METZNER STOVE REPAIR COMPANY V. RANFT, 47 M.C.C. 151, 154; GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY V. ONTARIO FREIGHT LINES, 46 M.C.C. 237; HAUSMAN STEEL COMPANY V. SEABOARD FREIGHT LINES, 32 M.C.C. 31, 36. HAD THE INITIAL CARRIER PERFORMED ITS DUTY IN THIS RESPECT, THE AMOUNT ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND PAID WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY APPLICABLE FOR, AS STATED IN OUR CERTIFICATE, THERE WAS AVAILABLE IN TARIFF NO. 66-B A RATE OF 128 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS FOR THAT PART OF THE HAUL FROM TORONTO TO MOLINE, ILLINOIS, VIA THE COLVILLE CARTAGE COMPANY TO DETROIT, MICHIGAN, AND EITHER HAYES FREIGHT LINES OR KEESHIN MOTOR EXPRESS, INC., BEYOND, PLUS A RATE IN ANOTHER TARIFF OF 61 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS FOR THAT PART OF THE HAUL FROM MOLINE TO OTTUMWA.

WHILE IT APPEARS THAT YOUR COMPANY WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISROUTING OF THE SHIPMENT, IT IS NOT APPARENT THAT ANY LIABILITY SHOULD REST UPON THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY EXCESS CHARGES RESULTING FROM THE MISROUTING OF THE SHIPMENT BY ONE OF THE CARRIERS IN THE ROUTE OF MOVEMENT, OR THAT THERE IS ANY DUTY ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY ADDITIONAL CHARGES TO ONE CARRIER AND THEN SEEK TO RECOVER THE SAME CHARGES FROM ANOTHER CARRIER. GALVESTON, HOUSTON AND SAN ANTONIO RAILWAY COMPANY V. LYKES BROS., 294 F. 968; LANCASTER V. SCHREINER, 212 S.W. 19.

THE SETTLEMENT, WHICH WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOREGOING, IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN IN ERROR OTHERWISE, AND, ACCORDINGLY, IS SUSTAINED.