B-143485, APR. 25, 1961

B-143485: Apr 25, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WE INFORMED YOU THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A REPORT FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BEFORE WE COMPLETED OUR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT ACTION IN CLAIM NO. WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED A REPORT FROM MILAN ARSENAL. " WERE PART OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 648. WERE PART OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 725. WERE PART OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT OF 1. WY-182425 AND WY-182478 WERE PART OF THE SAME VOLUME SHIPMENT CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION TO YOU OF JANUARY 12. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THAT DECISION WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS MADE AVAILABLE AT ONE TIME IN A QUANTITY IN EXCESS OF THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT. THAT THE APPLICABLE CHARGES ARE THOSE COMPUTED AT THE VOLUME RATE AND ACTUAL WEIGHT OF EACH PARTIAL SHIPMENT.

B-143485, APR. 25, 1961

TO STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.:

IN OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1960, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM NO. GAO 1962/55, WE INFORMED YOU THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A REPORT FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BEFORE WE COMPLETED OUR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT ACTION IN CLAIM NO. TK-682197. WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED A REPORT FROM MILAN ARSENAL, MILAN, TENNESSEE. OUR CERTIFICATE OF SETTLEMENT DATED MAY 27, 1960, IN CLAIM NO. TK-682197, DISALLOWED YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. 4447- A, FOR $1,797.35 FOR ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES ON TWENTY-FOUR GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING COVERING THE TRANSPORTATION OF DETONATING FUZES AND CARTRIDGE CASES MOVING DURING DECEMBER 1952.

THE ARTICLES INVOLVED MOVED UNDER THREE DIFFERENT SHIPPING ORDERS. FOUR OF THE PART LOT CONSIGNMENTS, CONSISTING OF "CARTRIDGE CASES, EMPTY, FOR CANNON, NOT PRIMED," WERE PART OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 648,000 POUNDS MOVING FROM MILAN ARSENAL, MILAN, TENNESSEE, TO THE LONE STAR ORDNANCE PLANT, DEFENSE, TEXAS. SIX OTHER PART LOT CONSIGNMENTS, MOVING UNDER GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING NOS. WY 182261, WY-182262, WY- 182279, WY-182299, WY-182300 AND WY-182305, CONSISTED OF DETONATING FUZES, AND WERE PART OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 725,274 POUNDS, CONSIGNED TO RED RIVER ARSENAL, DEFENSE, TEXAS. THE REMAINING PART LOT CONSIGNMENTS CONSISTED OF DETONATING FUZES, CONSIGNED TO LONE STAR ORDNANCE PLANT, DEFENSE, TEXAS, AND WERE PART OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT OF 1,835,115 POUNDS.

THE PART LOT MOVEMENTS OF CARTRIDGE CASES COVERED BY BILLS OF LADING WY- 182381, WY-182382, WY-182425 AND WY-182478 WERE PART OF THE SAME VOLUME SHIPMENT CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION TO YOU OF JANUARY 12, 1961, B-143444, COPY ENCLOSED FOR READY REFERENCE. EACH BILL OF LADING MADE REFERENCE TO THE FIRST PARTIAL SHIPMENT MOVING UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING WY- 182381. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THAT DECISION WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS MADE AVAILABLE AT ONE TIME IN A QUANTITY IN EXCESS OF THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT, AND THAT THE APPLICABLE CHARGES ARE THOSE COMPUTED AT THE VOLUME RATE AND ACTUAL WEIGHT OF EACH PARTIAL SHIPMENT.

AS TO THE PARTIAL SHIPMENTS OF DETONATING FUZES, THAT MOVING UNDER BILL OF LADING WY-182299 IS TYPICAL. EACH OF THESE PARTIAL SHIPMENTS WAS ROUTED COOK--- STRICKLAND. EACH BILL OF LADING WAS ANNOTATED IN ESSENTIALLY THE FOLLOWING MANNER:

"THIS B/L ISSUED TO COVER THE 28TH PART OF A COMPLETE SHIPMENT COMPRISING APPROX 725,274 POUNDS, THE FIRST PART THEREOF COVERED BY GBL WY-182160.'

MILAN ARSENAL REPORTS THAT FROM TWO TO EIGHT PARTIAL SHIPMENTS WERE MADE EACH DAY, INDICATING THAT ENOUGH TONNAGE WAS AVAILABLE AT ONE TIME TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT.

A VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT AS DEFINED IN THE MOTOR FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM A TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT IN THAT THE VOLUME RATE APPLIES WHEN A SHIPPER TENDERS THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT OF A COMMODITY FOR TRANSPORTATION AT ONE TIME, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF THE LARGEST AVAILABLE VEHICLE AND MUST BE TRANSPORTED IN TWO OR MORE VEHICLES. STOVES FROM ALABAMA AND TENNESSEE TO INTERSTATE POINTS, 4 M.C.C. 641, 643 (FOOTNOTE); GULF PORTS--- ALABAMA, GEORGIA AND TENNESSEE-- - COMMODITY RATES, 10 M.C.C. 106 (FOOTNOTE). THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT MUST BE TENDERED AT ONE TIME, AND BE AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION FROM THE SHIPPING POINT AT ONE TIME. PEANUT BUTTER FROM MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA TO GEORGIA, 22 M.C.C. 375, 377. A TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE QUANTITY WHICH A CARRIER CAN TRANSPORT IN A SINGLE VEHICLE. SINCE DETONATING FUZES IN EXCESS OF THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 30,000 POUNDS WERE TENDERED AT ONE TIME TO THE ORIGINATING CARRIER, THE AGGREGATE WEIGHT OF THE ARTICLES SO TENDERED CLEARLY CONSTITUTES A VOLUME SHIPMENT.

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS HAVE IN SEVERAL INSTANCES TREATED PROPERTY COVERED BY MORE THAN ONE BILL OF LADING AS A SINGLE SHIPMENT. IN A CASE IN WHICH A SHIPMENT WAS LOADED IN TWO CARS IN LIEU OF A LARGER CAR THAT WAS ORDERED, AND A BILL OF LADING WAS ISSUED FOR EACH CAR, THE BILL OF LADING COVERING THE LARGER LOAD MADE REFERENCE TO THE FURNISHING OF TWO CARS, AND THE BILL OF LADING COVERING THE SMALLER LOAD SHOWED THAT IT WAS A PART SHIPMENT. THERE THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THIS CROSS REFERENCE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT ONE BILL OF LADING BE ISSUED. STONE-FISHER COMPANY V. DIRECTOR GENERAL, 77 I.C.C. 369. SEE, ALSO, WILLINGHAM V. SELIGMAN, 179 F.2D 257; EXPOSITION COTTON MILLS V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., 234 I.C.C. 441.

IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL TO ATTEMPT TO USE ONLY ONE BILL OF LADING FOR THE VOLUME SHIPMENTS. ONE SHIPMENT CONSISTED OF 30 PART LOTS, AND THE OTHER 42 PART LOTS. IT WAS NECESSARY TO ISSUE MULTIPLE BILLS OF LADING TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT BY THE CARRIERS OF EACH PORTION OF THE SHIPMENT, AND OF DELIVERY TO THE CONSIGNEE.

IN YOUR LETTER REQUESTING REVIEW YOU CITE AS AUTHORITY FOR THE APPLICATION OF TRUCKLOAD RATES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DECISION IN GUS BLASS COMPANY V. POWELL BROTHERS TRUCK LINES, 53 M.C.C. 603. WHILE THE COMMISSION HELD THAT TRUCKLOAD RATES WERE APPLICABLE IN THAT CASE, THE REAL ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE CARRIER WAS ENTITLED TO BE PAID ON A TRUCKLOAD BASIS OR ON AN EXCLUSIVE-USE-OF-VEHICLE BASIS WHERE THE APPLICATION OF A SEAL DEPRIVED THE CARRIER OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE FULL USE OF THE CAPACITY OF THE VEHICLE. AN EXCLUSIVE-USE SITUATION IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, AND ON THE BASIS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT SHOWING THAT TONNAGE IN EXCESS OF THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ORIGINATING CARRIER AT ONE TIME, OUR SETTLEMENT DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.