B-149162, JUN. 18, 1963

B-149162: Jun 18, 1963

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

SMITH AND SOLOMON TRUCKING COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATES DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIMS FOR $865.26 AND $255.40 PER YOUR BILLS 10-11A (1959) AND 12-1A (1959). THESE CLAIMS ARE FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION CHARGES COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF TRUCKLOAD RATES AT MINIMUM WEIGHTS (AS ORIGINALLY BILLED BY YOU) AND LESS- THAN-TRUCKLOAD RATES AT ACTUAL WEIGHTS (AS SETTLED IN OUR POST AUDIT) ON FIVE SHIPMENTS OF ROCKET MOTORS (ONE SHIPMENT INCLUDED ALSO FUSES AND BATTERIES) FROM ROMULUS. YOU STATE THAT THESE SHIPMENTS WERE MOVED TO SPECIAL MILITARY SITES LOCATED AWAY FROM PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES. DELIVERY HAD TO BE SYNCHRONIZED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE RECEIVING INSTALLATIONS AND SPECIAL DELIVERY DATES WERE ARRANGED FOR.

B-149162, JUN. 18, 1963

SMITH AND SOLOMON TRUCKING COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATES DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIMS FOR $865.26 AND $255.40 PER YOUR BILLS 10-11A (1959) AND 12-1A (1959). THESE CLAIMS ARE FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION CHARGES COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF TRUCKLOAD RATES AT MINIMUM WEIGHTS (AS ORIGINALLY BILLED BY YOU) AND LESS- THAN-TRUCKLOAD RATES AT ACTUAL WEIGHTS (AS SETTLED IN OUR POST AUDIT) ON FIVE SHIPMENTS OF ROCKET MOTORS (ONE SHIPMENT INCLUDED ALSO FUSES AND BATTERIES) FROM ROMULUS, NEW YORK, TO EITHER SLATERSVILLE, RHODE ISLAND,OR ANSONIA, CONNECTICUT, DURING SEPTEMBER THROUGH NOVEMBER 1959.

YOU STATE THAT THESE SHIPMENTS WERE MOVED TO SPECIAL MILITARY SITES LOCATED AWAY FROM PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES; DELIVERY HAD TO BE SYNCHRONIZED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE RECEIVING INSTALLATIONS AND SPECIAL DELIVERY DATES WERE ARRANGED FOR; THE SHIPMENTS MOVED UNDER SEAL AND WERE ACCORDED ,SPECIAL MILITARY SERVICE REQUIRED; " AND THAT THE PERTINENT MILITARY ROUTING ORDERS INDICATED THAT THE SHIPMENTS WERE TO MOVE AS TRUCKLOADS AND THE RATES SHOWN THEREON WERE TRUCKLOAD RATES. THEREFORE, YOU CONTEND THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO TRUCKLOAD CHARGES ON THESE FIVE SHIPMENTS.

THE COVERING GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING ARE ANNOTATED TO SHOW THAT THE SHIPPER APPLIED A SEAL AND REQUESTED DELIVERY BY A SPECIFIED DATE. NOTATION IS SHOWN ON THE BILLS OF LADING OF ,SPECIAL MILITARY SERVICE REQUIRED.' THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT THE ORIGIN CARRIER WAS NEITHER REQUESTED NOR AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE, THE EQUIPMENT UTILIZED WAS NOT LOADED TO CAPACITY, AND THE ARRIVAL DATES WERE SHOWN ON THE BILLS OF LADING FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES FOR THE CARRIER TO PROTECT DELIVERY DATES INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE.

IN OUR AUDIT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NO MORE THAN LESS-THAN-TRUCKLOAD CHARGES WERE LEGALLY APPLICABLE TO THESE SHIPMENTS. THIS WAS BECAUSE RULE 25 (APPLICATION OF MAXIMUM CHARGES) OF MIDDLE ATLANTIC CONFERENCE FREIGHT TARIFF NOS. 10-N AND 15-J PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (D) THAT:

"WHEN THE CHARGE ON A SHIPMENT IS MADE LOWER BY BILLING IT AS A LESS-THAN -TRUCKLOAD SHIPMENT, SUCH LOWER CHARGE WILL APPLY.'

AN EXCEPTION PROVIDING FOR THE NONAPPLICATION OF RULE 25 IN CONNECTION WITH SHIPMENTS ACCORDED EXPEDITED, SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE-USE OF-VEHICLE SERVICE IS NAMED IN RULE 9 (EXPEDITED SERVICE), EXCEPTION 3, OF TARIFF NOS. 10-N AND 15-J. HOWEVER, BEFORE TRUCKLOAD CHARGES (SUBJECT TO A SPECIFIED MINIMUM CHARGE) MAY BE ASSESSED BY A CARRIER FOR EXPEDITED, SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE THE CONSIGNOR OR CONSIGNEE AS REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF RULE 9 (C) (1), MUST REQUEST SUCH SERVICE AND THE BILL OF LADING AND SHIPPING ORDER MUST BE INDORSED "SHIPMENT ACCEPTED AND CHARGED ACCORDING TO RULE 9 OF TARIFF 10-N, MF-I.C.C. NO. A-970 (D) (TARIFF 15-J, MF-I.C.C. NO. A 949), MIDDLE ATLANTIC CONFERENCE, AGENT.' SINCE EXPEDITED, SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE WAS NOT ORDERED BY THE MILITARY AND THE REQUIRED ANNOTATION WAS NOT PLACED UPON THE BILL OF LADING AND SHIPPING ORDER (SEE GUS BLASS CO. V. POWELL BROS. TRUCK LINE, 53 M.C.C. 603 (1951) (, TRUCKLOAD CHARGES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS RULE.

WE NOTE THAT ON SEVERAL OF THE INVOLVED BILLS OF LADING YOU HAVE CITED RULE 62-1 (VEHICLES LOADED TO CAPACITY) OF TARIFF 15-J AS AUTHORITY FOR ASSESSING CHARGES ON A TRUCKLOAD BASIS. EVEN IF THESE WERE CAPACITY LOAD SHIPMENTS--- AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT THEY WERE NOT--- RULE 62-1 IS NOT SHOWN AS AN EXCEPTION TO RULE 25 (APPLICATION OF MAXIMUM CHARGES). MOREOVER, RULE 25--- BESIDES MAKING LESS-THAN-TRUCKLOAD CHARGES MAXIMUM CHARGES--- PROVIDES IN PARAGRAPH (C) THAT "WHEN THE AGGREGATE CHARGE ON THE ENTIRE SHIPMENT IS MADE LOWER BY DIVIDING AND RATING IT AS THOUGH IT WERE TWO OR MORE SEPARATE SHIPMENTS, UNDER SEPARATE BILLS OF LADING, SUCH LOWER CHARGE WILL APPLY.' OBVIOUSLY, THE MIXED SHIPMENT COVERED BY BILL OF LADING WY-9813464--- ACTUALLY WEIGHING 8,200 POUNDS AND SUBJECT TO A TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 23,000 POUNDS--- COULD HAVE BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO, SEPARATE NONCAPACITY LOAD SHIPMENTS TO DEFEAT THE TRUCKLOAD CHARGE PROVISIONS OF THE CAPACITY LOAD RULE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE CAPACITY LOAD RULE WAS, IN FACT, APPLICABLE.

ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO TARIFF PROVISIONS WHICH ENTITLE YOU TO TRUCKLOAD CHARGES FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED AND THE SETTLEMENT ACTIONS DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIMS ARE SUSTAINED.