B-151997, NOV. 19, 1963

B-151997: Nov 19, 1963

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY LINES: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JULY 3. THE ARTICLE HERE INVOLVED WAS DESCRIBED ON THE COVERING BILLS OF LADING (AF-7041187. " AND THE TWO SHIPMENTS WERE TRANSPORTED FROM MCNAIR. YOU ORIGINALLY BILLED AND WERE PAID ON THE BASIS OF THE COMBINATION ARTICLE RULE AT THE CLASS 85 RATING NAMED FOR FREIGHT AUTOMOBILES IN THE PERTINENT FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION. THIS FUNCTION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE APPLICATION OF WATER OR OTHER LIQUID OF SIMILAR VISCOSITY TO SURFACES PREPARED WITH CEMENT OR OTHERWISE. WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS A SINGLE. THE QUESTION OF THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION OF THIS COMMODITY IS AT ISSUE IN SEVERAL COURT CASES NOW PENDING. THE QUESTION IS BEING HANDLED UNDER I.C.C.

B-151997, NOV. 19, 1963

TO. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY LINES:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JULY 3, 1963, FILES G 1004- 623-A-8/57 AND G-1004-423-A-6/57, IN WHICH YOU REQUESTED A REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENTS DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES OF $274.85 AND $481.60 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

THE ARTICLE HERE INVOLVED WAS DESCRIBED ON THE COVERING BILLS OF LADING (AF-7041187, DATED JULY 31, 1957, AND AF-7040907, DATED JUNE 14, 1957) AS "VEHICLE, MOTOR FREIGHT, SU (WATER DIST.)," AND THE TWO SHIPMENTS WERE TRANSPORTED FROM MCNAIR, NORTH CAROLINA, TO AIRSCULE, MONTANA, AND STRINGER, ARKANSAS.

YOU ORIGINALLY BILLED AND WERE PAID ON THE BASIS OF THE COMBINATION ARTICLE RULE AT THE CLASS 85 RATING NAMED FOR FREIGHT AUTOMOBILES IN THE PERTINENT FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION. IN OUR AUDIT OF THE VOUCHERS INVOLVED WE COMPUTED THE APPLICABLE CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF THE CLASS 45 RATING NAMED FOR MACHINERY AND MACHINES, NOIBN, IN ITEM 29662 OF THE FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION. WHILE THE RECORD HERE DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE MANUFACTURER OF THE PARTICULAR ITEMS SHIPPED, THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIMILAR WATER DISTRIBUTORS PURCHASED BY THE GOVERNMENT INDICATE THAT THEY CONSTITUTE A SPECIALIZED PIECE OF MACHINERY DESIGNED FOR SOIL STABILIZATION WORK. THIS FUNCTION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE APPLICATION OF WATER OR OTHER LIQUID OF SIMILAR VISCOSITY TO SURFACES PREPARED WITH CEMENT OR OTHERWISE. WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS A SINGLE, INTEGRATED PIECE OF MACHINERY, AND THAT THE COMBINATION ARTICLE RULE DOES NOT APPLY.

THE QUESTION OF THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION OF THIS COMMODITY IS AT ISSUE IN SEVERAL COURT CASES NOW PENDING, INCLUDING THE TWO MENTIONED IN YOUR LETTER--- SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL. NO. 119-62, AND ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL. NO. 91-62. THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION AS TO THE APPLICABLE CHARGE BASIS. THE QUESTION IS BEING HANDLED UNDER I.C.C. DOCKET NO.S 34284 AND 34284, SUB. 1, AND HAS BEEN SET DOWN FOR HEARING ON DECEMBER 10, 1963.

NO NEW EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT WOULD WARRANT A MODIFICATION OF OUR PREVIOUS CONCLUSION AS TO THE CHARGE BASIS PROPERLY APPLICABLE ON WATER DISTRIBUTORS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED LITIGATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENTS DISALLOWING YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS APPEAR TO BE CORRECT AND ARE SUSTAINED.