Skip to main content

B-127682, SEP. 18, 1956

B-127682 Sep 18, 1956
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST. YOU CLAIMED ORIGINALLY AND WERE PAID FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A RATE OF 76 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS. THESE BILLS WERE AUDITED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION IN THE LIGHT OF A LETTER DATED MAY 4. A COMBINATION OF 75-65 PERCENT OF THE FIRST CLASS RATE WOULD BE PROTECTED ON THIS MOVEMENT.'" SUCH A BASIS RESULTED IN THE DISPUTED OVERPAYMENTS WHICH WERE COLLECTED BY DEDUCTION IN MAKING PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE YOU. YOU CLAIMED THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED AND THESE CLAIMS WERE DISALLOWED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION. BATHAM'S LETTER IS NOT IN FACT A SECTION 22 QUOTATION. THE RECORD HERE SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME THESE SHIPMENTS WERE CONTEMPLATED THERE WERE AVAILABLE ON THE SUBJECT COMMODITY RATINGS OF CLASS 75-A TO BUFFALO AND CLASS 75 BEYOND.

View Decision

B-127682, SEP. 18, 1956

TO THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST, UNDER FILE G 619754, FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF YOUR BILL NO. 619754 AND OTHERS, FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SHIPMENTS OF NITRO GUANIDINE, EACH WEIGHING 46,400 POUNDS, FROM PORT ROBINSON, ONTARIO, CANADA, TO DE SOTA, KANSAS, DURING APRIL AND MAY, 1953.

YOU CLAIMED ORIGINALLY AND WERE PAID FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A RATE OF 76 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS, CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT 60,000 POUNDS, FROM PORT ROBINSON, CANADA, TO BUFFALO, NEW YORK, KANSAS, BOTH RATES BEING SUBJECT TO AN INCREASE OF 15 PERCENT. LATER, YOU CLAIMED ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS REPRESENTING A SURCHARGE OF ONE PERCENT. THESE BILLS WERE AUDITED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION IN THE LIGHT OF A LETTER DATED MAY 4, 1953 FROM YOUR GENERAL AGENT, J. C. BATHAM, AT WASHINGTON, D.C., TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, READING, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"REFERRING TO MY CONVERSATION WITH YOU TODAY, I AM QUOTING BELOW LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE OFFICE OF CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION ON MARCH THE 30TH.

" "REFERRING TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF THE PAST SEVERAL DAYS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 22 QUOTATION ON AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES FROM FORT (PORT) ROBINSON, ONTARIO, TO DE SOTA, KANSAS.

" "OUR GENERAL OFFICE ADVISED ME ON TELEPHONE THAT U.S. LINES WOULD PROTECT THE RATE OF 65 PERCENT OF THE FIRST CLASS FROM THE BORDER TO DE SOTO, AND THE CANADIAN LINES WOULD PROTECT 75 PERCENT OF THE FIRST CLASS FROM ORIGIN TO BORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, A COMBINATION OF 75-65 PERCENT OF THE FIRST CLASS RATE WOULD BE PROTECTED ON THIS MOVEMENT.'"

SUCH A BASIS RESULTED IN THE DISPUTED OVERPAYMENTS WHICH WERE COLLECTED BY DEDUCTION IN MAKING PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE YOU. THEREAFTER, YOU CLAIMED THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED AND THESE CLAIMS WERE DISALLOWED BY OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION.

IN YOUR PRESENT SUBMISSION, YOU SUBMIT COPIES OF CERTAIN CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO SHIPMENTS FROM PORT ROBINSON, ONTARIO. YOU REQUEST THAT THIS MATTER BE REVIEWED, AND THAT IF SUCH REVIEW DISCLOSES THAT MR. BATHAM'S LETTER IS NOT IN FACT A SECTION 22 QUOTATION, YOU BE ALLOWED CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF REGULARLY PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES.

THE RECORD HERE SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME THESE SHIPMENTS WERE CONTEMPLATED THERE WERE AVAILABLE ON THE SUBJECT COMMODITY RATINGS OF CLASS 75-A TO BUFFALO AND CLASS 75 BEYOND. IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE REQUEST FOR A SECTION 22 QUOTATION WAS UNDERSTOOD AS AN EFFORT TO SECURE RATES ON THE ANTICIPATED MOVEMENTS WHICH WERE LESS THAN THE PUBLISHED RATES. SEEMS CLEAR ENOUGH THAT THE CARRIER WAS WELL AWARE OF THE UNDERTAKING BY ITS AGENT TO AFFORD THE GOVERNMENT BENEFITS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER PUBLISHED TARIFFS. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO QUESTION THAT YOUR CHICAGO OFFICE HAD AUTHORITY TO QUOTE REDUCED RATES AND THAT THE REDUCED RATE BASIS SUBMITTED BY YOUR WASHINGTON AGENT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THAT AUTHORITY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ARRANGEMENT AS MADE BY YOUR AGENT WAS GIVEN PROPER EFFECT IN OUR AUDIT, WHICH TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE CONCESSION THUS MADE.

ACCORDINGLY, WE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN MODIFYING OUR AUDIT BASIS, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO ..END :

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs