B-148053, MAY 14, 1962

B-148053: May 14, 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 JANUARY 18. YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $263.05. THE CHARGES WERE PREDICATED ON RATES ESTABLISHED IN SOUTHWESTERN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU U.S. THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES WERE CLAIMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LIGHT AND BULKY ARTICLE RULE. IS ON A PER ARTICLE BASIS. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED. NOR RULE 120 (B) IS APPLICABLE. THE TERMS OF RULE 110 COME INTO PLAY ONLY "WHEN EXCLUSIVE USE OF CARRIER'S EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED OR DEMANDED BY THE SHIPPER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS * * *.'" YOU THEN CONTEND "THESE STATEMENTS COULD NOT BE ANY CLEARER. EXCLUSIVE USE WAS NOT REQUIRED OR DEMANDED BY THE SHIPPER AND THERE WERE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO WARRANT IT.

B-148053, MAY 14, 1962

TO A. B. JAMES FREIGHT LINES:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 18, 1962, FILE NO. N- 679/51 UC-103A TK656478, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST REVIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM, PER SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. N-679 UC103A, FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL FROM OAKLAND TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. N-13405606 DATED MAY 19, 1951.

FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PERFORMED, YOU ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND WERE PAID $263.05, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF AN ALL-FREIGHT RATE OF 65 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS ON THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF 40,489 POUNDS. THE CHARGES WERE PREDICATED ON RATES ESTABLISHED IN SOUTHWESTERN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU U.S. GOVERNMENT QUOTATION NO. 1, ITEM 200, 12TH REVISED PAGE 20. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON MAY 3, 1961, YOU SUBMITTED YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF $29.46. THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES WERE CLAIMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LIGHT AND BULKY ARTICLE RULE, TARIFF RULE 120, IS ON A PER ARTICLE BASIS. BY APPLYING THE CUBE RULE ONPER ARTICLE BASIS, IT INCREASED THE CUBE WEIGHT TO 45,001 POUNDS. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED.

IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU ARGUE THAT NEITHER RULE 110, THE EXCLUSIVE -USE RULE, NOR RULE 120 (B) IS APPLICABLE, SINCE "* * * THE RECORD CONTAINS NO INDICATION OF A DEMAND BY THE SHIPPER FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF CARRIER'S EQUIPMENT OR AN INDICATION THAT THE SHIPPER ANNOTATED THE BILL OF LADING AS TO THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT ORDERED AND FURNISHED.' CONCERNING RULE 110, WHICH PROVIDES FOR EXCLUSIVE USE, YOU REFER TO A DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, B-131798, DATED MARCH 2, 1959, AND QUOTE A PORTION THEREOF AS FOLLOWS:

"THEREFORE, THE BODY OF RULE 110 PERTAINS ONLY TO SHIPMENTS INVOLVING THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CARRIER'S EQUIPMENT, AND THE TERMS OF RULE 110 COME INTO PLAY ONLY "WHEN EXCLUSIVE USE OF CARRIER'S EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED OR DEMANDED BY THE SHIPPER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS * * *.'"

YOU THEN CONTEND "THESE STATEMENTS COULD NOT BE ANY CLEARER. EXCLUSIVE USE WAS NOT REQUIRED OR DEMANDED BY THE SHIPPER AND THERE WERE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO WARRANT IT. THEREFORE, RULE 110 CAN NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.'

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT, AS TO THE INSTANT SHIPMENT, EXCLUSIVE USE WAS NOT REQUESTED AND THAT THE EXCLUSIVE-USE RULE CONSIDERED ALONE HAS NO APPLICATION. HOWEVER, RULE 120 (B) THE LIGHT AND BULKY ARTICLE RULE PROVIDES "WHEN SHIPMENT IS COMPLETELY LOADED ON EQUIPMENT ORDERED AND FURNISHED, THEN CHARGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ITEM SHALL NOT EXCEED THE CHARGES THAT WOULD ACCRUE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ITEM 110.' THE BILL OF LADING INVOLVED IS ANNOTATED TO SHOW THE GOVERNMENT ORDERED EQUIPMENT AS FOLLOWS: "NO. TRUCKS 1 TYPE SET DBLES LENGTH 20 FEET EA" INDICATING 40 FEET OF VEHICLE WERE ORDERED AND THERE IS NOTHING OF RECORD HERE INDICATING ANY OTHER VEHICLE WAS FURNISHED. THUS ITEM 120 (B) LIMITS THE MAXIMUM CHARGES TO THOSE UNDER ITEM 110 WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 9, 1962, IS SUSTAINED.