B-147005, JUN. 5, 1962

B-147005: Jun 5, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

B. JAMES FREIGHT LINES: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 16. N 14205045 YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $521.78 COMPUTED AT A RATE OF 65 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS FOR THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF 80. N-14212825 YOU CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $263.48 COMPUTED AT THE SAME RATE FOR THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF 40. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE EACH OF THE SUBJECT BILLS OF LADING INDICATED THAT THE LADING TRAVELED ON EQUIPMENT ORDERED BY THE SHIPPER AND FURNISHED BY THE CARRIER THEREBY BRINGING BOTH SHIPMENTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF RULE 110 OF SOUTHWESTERN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU U.S. EXCEPTS TO OUR SETTLEMENT CHIEFLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE EQUIPMENT UTILIZED WAS IN FACT ORDERED BY THE SHIPPER AND THAT OUR POSITION AS INDICATED IN THE SETTLEMENT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT TAKEN IN OUR DECISION B-131789.

B-147005, JUN. 5, 1962

TO A. B. JAMES FREIGHT LINES:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 16, 1961, FILE NO. N- 640/51, UC-82A, WHEREIN YOU REQUESTED A REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE (TK 717983) DATED AUGUST 3, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $69.57 ON BILL NO. UC-82AN-640. YOUR CLAIM ARISES OUT OF THE MOVEMENT OF TWO SHIPMENTS OF MISCELLANEOUS FREIGHT FROM OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, DURING 1951 UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NOS. N- 14205045 AND N-14212825.

FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE SHIPMENT UNDER BILL OF LADING NO. N 14205045 YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $521.78 COMPUTED AT A RATE OF 65 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS FOR THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF 80,274 POUNDS, AND FOR THAT UNDER BILL OF LADING NO. N-14212825 YOU CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $263.48 COMPUTED AT THE SAME RATE FOR THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF 40,535 POUNDS. YOUR CLAIM FOR $69.57 REPRESENTS ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF $50.53 (BILL OF LADING NO. N-14205045) AND $19.04 (BILL OF LADING NO. N 14212825) WHICH YOU ALLEGE TO BE DUE YOU BY THE APPLICATION OF THE "CUBE RULE" FOR LIGHT AND BULKY ARTICLES THEREBY RAISING THE ACTUAL WEIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT SHIPMENTS TO THE CONSTRUCTIVE WEIGHTS OF 88,047 POUNDS AND 43,464 POUNDS, RESPECTIVELY.

IN THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 3, 1961, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE EACH OF THE SUBJECT BILLS OF LADING INDICATED THAT THE LADING TRAVELED ON EQUIPMENT ORDERED BY THE SHIPPER AND FURNISHED BY THE CARRIER THEREBY BRINGING BOTH SHIPMENTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF RULE 110 OF SOUTHWESTERN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU U.S. GOVERNMENT QUOTATION NO. 1, THROUGH THE REFERENCE IN RULE 120 (B) OF THE SAME TARIFF. YOUR RESPONSE OF AUGUST 16, 1961, EXCEPTS TO OUR SETTLEMENT CHIEFLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE EQUIPMENT UTILIZED WAS IN FACT ORDERED BY THE SHIPPER AND THAT OUR POSITION AS INDICATED IN THE SETTLEMENT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT TAKEN IN OUR DECISION B-131789, DATED MARCH 2, 1959.

THE SAME ISSUE WITH SIMILAR CONTENTIONS WAS RAISED BY YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1961 (FILE NO. N-686/51 US-117), TO WHICH WE REPLIED WITH OUR DECISION DATED APRIL 19, 1962, B-147344. SINCE WE HERE AFFIRM AND APPLY THE CONCLUSIONS STATED IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 19, 1962, A COPY THEREOF IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE. WE SPECIFICALLY REFER, HOWEVER, TO THE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 3 OF THAT DECISION WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF RULE 120 (A) OF THE SUBJECT TARIFF AS EXPLAINED IN THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 21, 1957, B-132118, PUBLISHED IN 37 COMP. GEN. 350. IT WAS THERE CONCLUDED THAT WHEN THE AGGREGATE WEIGHT OF A SHIPMENT IS IN EXCESS OF 15 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE CUBIC FOOT RULE TO EACH ARTICLE ON THE SHIPMENT.

IN THE PRESENT CASE WE NOTE THAT GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. N 14205045 IS ANNOTATED TO SHOW THAT THE SHIPMENT OF MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL OCCUPIED 4,166 CUBIC FEET OF SPACE WITH AN ACTUAL WEIGHT OF 80,192 POUNDS. IF EACH CUBIC FOOT WAS TO BE CONVERTED TO A WEIGHT OF 15 POUNDS, THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENT WOULD BE 62,490 POUNDS, OR 17,702 POUNDS LESS THAN THE ACTUAL WEIGHT. SIMILARLY BILL OF LADING NO. N-14212825 IS ANNOTATED TO SHOW 1,998 CUBIC FEET OF LADING AT AN ACTUAL WEIGHT OF 40,535 POUNDS. 15 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT THIS SHIPMENT WOULD HAVE WEIGHED 29,970 POUNDS OR 10,565 POUNDS LESS THAN THE ACTUAL WEIGHT. SINCE THE SUBJECT SHIPMENTS WEIGHED MORE THAN 15 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT RULE 120 (A) IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR EVEN THOUGH SOME ARTICLES WEIGHED LESS THAN 15 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT, MANY WEIGHED MORE, AND AS THE ENTIRE LOT WAS TENDERED BY THE SHIPPER AS A SINGLE SHIPMENT, THE AGGREGATE WEIGHT IS THE CONTROLLING WEIGHT IN COMPUTING CHARGES FOR SUCH A SHIPMENT.

IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE PROPER CHARGES ON EACH OF THE TWO SHIPMENTS IN ISSUE WERE COMPUTABLE AT THE RATE OF 65 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS, APPLIED TO THE ACTUAL WEIGHT, AS PRESCRIBED BY ITEM 200 OF SOUTHWESTERN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU U.S. GOVERNMENT QUOTATION NO. 1. SINCE THIS WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN PAID, THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 3, 1961, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES, IS SUSTAINED.