B-135770, AUG. 11, 1959

B-135770: Aug 11, 1959

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TO CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REQUEST IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 6. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 23. IN AGAIN REASSERTING YOUR VIEW THAT THE GREATER MINIMUM WEIGHT IS APPLICABLE FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES ON THESE SHIPMENTS. DOES NOT SEEM RELEVENT IN RESOLVING THE PROPER CHARGES APPLICABLE ON THE SHIPMENTS HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE HAS STATED IN A LETTER ADDRESSED TO OUR OFFICE THAT IT WAS NOT THE PRACTICE OF THE LIMA TANK DEPOT TO SHIP HALF-TRACK VEHICLES OF THIS DESCRIPTION WITH GUNS MOUNTED. ITEM 34581 SPECIFICALLY IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO "HALF TRACKS. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS ADVISED THAT THEIR RECORDS SHOW THAT STANDARD ARMAMENT WAS NOT INCLUDED WITH THE SHIPMENTS.

B-135770, AUG. 11, 1959

TO CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REQUEST IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 6, 1959, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SETTLEMENTS ISSUED ON YOUR BILLS N 22347, 23190, 23191, AND 24082-G-A, COVERING SEVERAL SHIPMENTS OFM-5 AND M-9-A-1 HALF-TRACK VEHICLES WHICH MOVED IN TRANSPORTATION FROM LIMA, OHIO, TO FORT BENNING JUNCTION, GEORGIA, DURING 1943. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1958, B 135770, AFFIRMED BY OUR B-135770 OF FEBRUARY 4, 1959.

IN AGAIN REASSERTING YOUR VIEW THAT THE GREATER MINIMUM WEIGHT IS APPLICABLE FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE FREIGHT CHARGES ON THESE SHIPMENTS, YOU CONTEND THAT THE ONLY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RATINGS NAMED IN ITEMS 34581 AND 43812 OF CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION 15 RESTS ON THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF GUNS IN THE SHIPMENT. YOU ALSO INVITE OUR ATTENTION TO AN ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DETERMINATION MADE ON THE SHIPMENTS HERE INVOLVED AND THE DETERMINATION MADE AS TO THOSE CONSIDERED UNDER OUR FILE B-121682, WHICH INVOLVED QUESTION AS TO THE EFFECT OF RULE 18 IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF SHIPMENTS COMPRISED OF HALF-TRACK VEHICLES AND BOMED MACHINE GUNS.

WHILE YOU INDICATE A CONCURRENCE WITH THE STATEMENT IN OUR FILE B 121682 THAT THE AFFIXING OF GUNS WOULD NOT CHANGE THE COMMODITY DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEM SHIPPED FROM A HALF-TRACK VEHICLE TO A COMBINATION ARTICLE RATABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 18, YOU NOW TAKE ISSUE WITH A STATEMENT MADE IN FILE B-135770 AS TO THE BASIC DIFFERENCE EXISTING BETWEEN HALF- TRACK VEHICLES DESIGNED AS PERSONNEL CARRIERS AND HALF-TRACK VEHICLES DESIGNED AS ORDNANCE EQUIPMENT. THE ISSUE WHICH YOU RAISE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT SEEM RELEVENT IN RESOLVING THE PROPER CHARGES APPLICABLE ON THE SHIPMENTS HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE HAS STATED IN A LETTER ADDRESSED TO OUR OFFICE THAT IT WAS NOT THE PRACTICE OF THE LIMA TANK DEPOT TO SHIP HALF-TRACK VEHICLES OF THIS DESCRIPTION WITH GUNS MOUNTED, AND ITEM 34581 SPECIFICALLY IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO "HALF TRACKS, ARMY, WITH GUNS MOUNTED THEREON * * *.' MOREOVER, AS WE PREVIOUSLY STATED CONCERNING THESE SHIPMENTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS ADVISED THAT THEIR RECORDS SHOW THAT STANDARD ARMAMENT WAS NOT INCLUDED WITH THE SHIPMENTS.

REGARDING YOUR ASSERTION THAT OUR DECISIONS BOTH CONFIRM AND DENY THAT GUNS WERE INCLUDED WITH THE SHIPMENTS, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THE DETERMINATION MADE IN EACH INSTANCE WAS NECESSARILY PREMISED ON THE FACTUAL INFORMATION OF RECORD SURROUNDING THE PARTICULAR SHIPMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE SHIPMENTS MOVED FROM DIFFERENT ORIGINS TO DIFFERENT DESTINATIONS AND CONSISTED OF DIFFERENT MODELS OF THE HALF-TRACK VEHICLES.

ACCORDINGLY, AND SINCE YOUR LETTER FAILS TO DISCLOSE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED, THE CONCLUSION IN OUR DECISIONS OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1958, AND FEBRUARY 4, 1959, IS REAFFIRMED AND FURTHER SIMILAR CORRESPONDENCE--- NOT CONTAINING ANY NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE -- WOULD APPEAR TO SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE.