B-134745, JUL. 2, 1958

B-134745: Jul 2, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS. THE OVERPAYMENT WAS RECOVERED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY DEDUCTION FROM CHARGES OTHERWISE DUE THE CARRIER. THE ARTICLE IS NOT SPECIFICALLY RATED AS SUCH IN CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 16. WHICH WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THESE SHIPMENTS MOVED. YOU URGE THAT THE COMMODITY IS A COMBINATION ARTICLE. " AND IS NAMED IN ITEM 28800 OF CLASSIFICATION NO. 16. INFORMATION AS TO THE PROPER DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMODITY MAKING UP THESE SHIPMENTS WAS REQUESTED FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. THE KANSAS CITY TRANSPORTATION CORPS UNIT REPLIED THAT THE ARTICLE WAS A "WATER PURIFICATION UNIT. NOIBN WAS APPLICABLE TO THIS UNIT. " AND "THAT THE UNIT IS NOT READILY DISMOUNTED. ON THE VEHICLE BODY WERE NOT ON THE ORDNANCE VEHICLE.'.

B-134745, JUL. 2, 1958

TO THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY:

YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 19, 1957 (WITH ENCLOSURE), FILE 152587-S, IS, IN EFFECT, A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 22, 1957 (TK 614898), WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM, ON SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. 42495-44, FOR $736.68. THE AMOUNT CLAIMED REPRESENTS AN OVERPAYMENT ON YOUR BILL NO. 42495, WHICH COVERED CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SEVEN CARLOADS, EACH WEIGHING 32,400 POUNDS, OF TRUCK-MOUNTED WATER PURIFICATION UNITS FROM GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS, TO BAYONNE (PORT JOHNSTON), NEW JERSEY, FOR EXPORT, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING, IN DECEMBER 1943. THE OVERPAYMENT WAS RECOVERED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY DEDUCTION FROM CHARGES OTHERWISE DUE THE CARRIER. THE DISPUTE IN THIS CASE INVOLVES THE QUESTION OF THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION, FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES, OF TRUCK- MOUNTED WATER PURIFICATION UNITS.

WITH SLIGHT VARIATIONS, EACH BILL OF LADING INVOLVED IN THE SETTLEMENT IDENTIFIES THE COMMODITY SHIPPED AS FREIGHT AUTOMOBILES AND WATER PURIFICATION UNITS. THE ARTICLE IS NOT SPECIFICALLY RATED AS SUCH IN CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 16, WHICH WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THESE SHIPMENTS MOVED, AND YOU URGE THAT THE COMMODITY IS A COMBINATION ARTICLE, A WATER PURIFIER MOUNTED ON A TRUCK CHASSIS, AND THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 18 OF CLASSIFICATION NO. 16--- COMBINATION ARTICLES--- IT SHOULD BE RATED AS A FREIGHT MOTOR VEHICLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, OUR SETTLEMENT TREATS THE ARTICLE AS A SELF PROPELLED WATER PURIFIER WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION "FILTERING MACHINES, NOIBN," AND IS NAMED IN ITEM 28800 OF CLASSIFICATION NO. 16.

INFORMATION AS TO THE PROPER DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMODITY MAKING UP THESE SHIPMENTS WAS REQUESTED FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. THE KANSAS CITY TRANSPORTATION CORPS UNIT REPLIED THAT THE ARTICLE WAS A "WATER PURIFICATION UNIT, MOTORIZED," THAT "THE FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION OF FILTERING MACHINES, NOIBN WAS APPLICABLE TO THIS UNIT," AND "THAT THE UNIT IS NOT READILY DISMOUNTED, CANNOT BE OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY ON JOB SITE, AND THE DRIP PANS, HOSE, EXHAUST PIPES, ETC., ON THE VEHICLE BODY WERE NOT ON THE ORDNANCE VEHICLE.'

WAR DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL MANUAL TM 9-2800 SHOWS THAT THE TRUCK MOUNTED WATER PURIFICATION UNIT WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE MOBILE FACILITIES FOR WATER PURIFICATION AND THAT THE TRUCK CHASSIS TOGETHER WITH THE WATER PURIFIER FORMS A SINGLE UNIT. SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE INFORMED US THAT THE WATER PURIFIER IS NOT READILY DETACHABLE FROM THE TRUCK CHASSIS, AND IF REMOVED THE CONSEQUENT LOSS OF MOBILITY WOULD MAKE THE UNIT INCAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, IT SEEMS PROBABLE, ALSO, THAT THE TRUCK CHASSIS WITH THE WATER PURIFIER REMOVED COULD NOT BE USED FOR HAULING FREIGHT UNLESS STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS WERE MADE IN THE CHASSIS. FOR THESE REASONS, IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ARTICLE IS CORRECTLY CLASSIFIED AS AN ENTITY, THAT IS, AS A SELF-PROPELLED WATER PURIFIER, RATHER THAN AS A COMBINATION ARTICLE AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THAT THE COMBINATION ARTICLE RULE OF CLASSIFICATION NO. 16 DOES NOT APPLY IN DETERMINING THE CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE ARTICLE. SEE, IN THIS CONNECTION, STEWART AND STEPHENSON SERVICES, INC. V. BALTIMORE AND O.R. CO., 276 I.C.C. 156. FURTHER SUPPORT FOR OUR CONCLUSION IS FOUND IN HARRISON CONSTRUCTION CO. V. CINCINNATI, H.O. AND T.P.RY. CO., 266 I.C.C. 313, 316, A CASE IN WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HELD THAT A TRUCK-MOUNTED CONCRETE MIXER WAS NOT A COMBINATION ARTICLE BUT WAS A SELF- PROPELLED CONCRETE MIXING MACHINE AND WAS SUBJECT TO THE RATING APPLICABLE ON "MACHINERY AND MACHINES, N.O.I.B.N.' SEE, ALSO, THE SIMILAR HOLDINGS IN OAKLAND TRUCK SALES CO. V. BALTIMORE AND O.R. CO., 270 I.C.C. 548, AND AUGUST PLANTZ, INC. V. LONG ISLAND R. CO., 281 I.C.C. 172, THAT A TRUCK- MOUNTED CRANE WAS NOT A COMBINATION ARTICLE BUT WAS A SELF-PROPELLED CRANE WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO THE RATING APPLICABLE ON "CRANES OR DERRICKS, .I.B.N.'

THE DESCRIPTION IN ITEM 28800 OF CLASSIFICATION NO. 16--- "FILTERING MACHINES, NOIBN"--- SEEMS ADEQUATELY TO COVER THESE SELF-PROPELLED WATER PURIFIERS, WHICH, APPARENTLY, ARE SMALL-SCALE WATER FILTRATION PLANTS. FURTHERMORE, THE ITEM IS NOT LIMITED TO STATIONARY FILTERING MACHINES AND APPARENTLY COVERS THOSE THAT ARE SELF-PROPELLED.

THE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 22, 1957, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCLUSIONS STATED HEREIN, IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN IN ERROR OTHERWISE, AND, ACCORDINGLY, IS SUSTAINED.