Skip to main content

B-151413, AUG. 14, 1964

B-151413 Aug 14, 1964
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 29. THE LETTER STATES IN SUBSTANCE THAT ORIGIN SEAL PROTECTION ON EXPLOSIVES OR OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES WAS NOT TO BE BROKEN. THAT WHEN SEALS WERE BROKEN UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. A DETAILED REPORT WAS TO BE FURNISHED THE CONSIGNEE. ON THAT BASIS YOU INDICATE THAT A TRUCKLOAD CHARGE BASIS IS APPLICABLE TO THIS SHIPMENT. WE FIND NOTHING IN THE LETTER INDICATING THAT THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE REPRESENTED BY EACH GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING COVERING A SHIPMENT OF EXPLOSIVES WAS AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECT TO A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE BREAKING OF SEALS PLACED ON TRAILER DOORS. WAS NOT TO BE BROKEN. IF ANY EFFECT WAS TO BE GIVEN THE LETTER OF DECEMBER 20.

View Decision

B-151413, AUG. 14, 1964

TO HUGHES TRANSPORTATION, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 29, 1964, IN EFFECT ASKING FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION B-151413, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 1964, WHICH SUSTAINED THE SETTLEMENT DISALLOWING YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FURNISHED UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. WV- 9252440, DATED APRIL 30, 1951.

FOR NOW FURNISH A COPY OF A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 20, 1950, ADDRESSED TO HUGHES TRANSPORTATION, INC., BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C. THE LETTER STATES IN SUBSTANCE THAT ORIGIN SEAL PROTECTION ON EXPLOSIVES OR OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES WAS NOT TO BE BROKEN, EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AND THAT WHEN SEALS WERE BROKEN UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS, A DETAILED REPORT WAS TO BE FURNISHED THE CONSIGNEE. ON THAT BASIS YOU INDICATE THAT A TRUCKLOAD CHARGE BASIS IS APPLICABLE TO THIS SHIPMENT.

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE LETTER INDICATING THAT THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE REPRESENTED BY EACH GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING COVERING A SHIPMENT OF EXPLOSIVES WAS AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECT TO A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE BREAKING OF SEALS PLACED ON TRAILER DOORS. THE LETTER DOES NOT PURPORT TO FIX A CHARGE BASIS FOR ANY PARTICULAR SHIPMENT DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH DERIVES FROM THE TERMS OF THE ARRANGEMENT MADE BETWEEN SHIPPING OFFICERS AND THE CARRIERS, AS REFLECTED IN THE COVERING BILL OF LADING. BILL OF LADING NO. WV-9252440 DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY INSTRUCTION OR REQUIREMENT THAT THE CARRIER'S SEAL (HUGHES 9397), PRESUMABLY PLACED ON THE VEHICLE BY THE CARRIER, WAS NOT TO BE BROKEN. WE WOULD UNDERSTAND ALSO THAT THE CARRIER'S ACTION, IN USING A SEAL ON A TRAILER LOADED WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES, WOULD, TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT, BE INITS OWN INTEREST.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TECHNICAL MANUAL NO. TM-55-550, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1945, AND IN EFFECT ON DATE OF THIS SHIPMENT, PROVIDES IN PARAGRAPH 21-O (3) (F) THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OFFICER SHALL CAUSE TO BE PLACED IN THE BODY OF THE BILL OF LADING ALL SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR ON THE BILL OF LADING. THE ISSUING OFFICER, IN THIS INSTANCE, DID COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH 21AA (7) OF THE AFOREMENTIONED TECHNICAL MANUAL BY SHOWING THE SEAL RECORD ON THE BILL OF LADING. IF ANY EFFECT WAS TO BE GIVEN THE LETTER OF DECEMBER 20, 1950, AS A PART OF THE PRESENT CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FOR THE SHIPPING OFFICER TO INCORPORATE ITS TERMS SPECIFICALLY OR BY REFERENCE IN THE BILL OF LADING.

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY 1951, WHICH WAS PREDICATED ON A LESS THAN-TRUCKLOAD CHARGE BASIS AS ORIGINALLY BILLED BY THE CARRIER, CAN NOW BE MODIFIED TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF TRUCKLOAD CHARGES. OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 14, 1964, IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs