B-179944, AUG 8, 1974

B-179944, AUG 8, 1974

QUESTION UNDERLYING RATE APPLICABILITY ISSUE IN SETTLEMENTS DISALLOWING CARRIER'S CLAIMS IS WHETHER 3 LOTS OF CANNISTERS SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ONE SHIPMENT OR 3 SEPARATE SHIPMENTS SINCE NONE OF THE 3 GBLS WERE CROSS- REFERENCED. SUBSEQUENT CORRECTION NOTICES SIGNED BY CARRIER 14 MONTHS LATER SIGNIFY THAT CARRIER AGREED TO CONSIDER 3 LOTS AS A VOLUME SHIPMENT COVERED BY SEVERAL BILLS OF LADING, AND VOLUME RATES ARE APPLICABLE.

PACIFIC INTERMOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO:

PACIFIC INTERMOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO. (P.I.E.) HAS REQUESTED A REVIEW OF TWO TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION (TCD) SETTLEMENT ACTIONS; ONE, DATED OCTOBER 24, 1972 (CLAIM TK-945316), DISALLOWED ITS CLAIM NO. 1P03833 FOR $872.99; THE OTHER DATED MARCH 7, 1972 (CLAIM TK-942387), DISALLOWED ITS CLAIM NO. 1P03831 FOR $854.18. P.I.E. ALSO REQUESTS REVIEW OF TCD'S ACTION IN CAUSING AN OVERCHARGE OF $871.41 ON GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING (GBL) NO. F-0033390) TO BE COLLECTED BY DEDUCTION. P.I.E.'S CLAIM NUMBER IS 1P03832.

GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING NOS. F-0033389, F-0033390 AND F-0033391, DATED JUNE 18, 1968, WERE ISSUED TO COVER THE TRANSPORTATION OF CANNISTERS LOADED IN (CONEX) STEEL CONTAINERS FURNISHED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, FROM MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL BAY AREA, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION DEPOT, CHARLESTOWN, INDIANA. THE BILLS OF LADING WERE EXECUTED AT ORIGIN BY THE SAME AGENT. GBL NO. F-0033389 AND NO. F- 0033390 INDICATE THAT TWO FORTY-FOOT TRUCKS WERE FURNISHED AND USED AND GBL NO. F-0033391 SHOWS THAT A SET OF 26-FOOT DOUBLES WAS USED. THE ARTICLES WERE TENDERED AND SHIPPED ON THE SAME DAY FROM THE SAME SHIPPER, FROM THE SAME POINT OF ORIGIN TO THE SAME CONSIGNEE AT THE SAME DESTINATION. THE PHRASE "RMMTB TDR 15" APPEARS IN THE TARIFF OR SPECIAL RATE AUTHORITIES SPACE ON EACH BILL OF LADING. ALTHOUGH THE PHRASE MEANS ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU SECTION 22 QUOTATION 15, A SUCCESSOR QUOTATION, QUOTATION 15-A, ACTUALLY WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THE ARTICLES WERE TENDERED FOR SHIPMENT.

P.I.E. ORIGINALLY BILLED AND COLLECTED FREIGHT CHARGES APPARENTLY ON THE BASIS OF A RATE OF $3.98 PER 100 POUNDS AND A VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 60,000 POUNDS APPLIED TO THE ACTUAL WEIGHT ON EACH BILL OF LADING. THIS RATE AND MINUMUM WEIGHT ARE NAMED IN ITEM 2200 OF QUOTATION 15-A. IN OUR SUBSEQUENT AUDIT, LOWER CHARGES WERE FOUND APPLICABLE BASED ON THE ACTUAL WEIGHT OF EACH PART LOT BECAUSE CORRECTION NOTICES (DD FORM 1352) HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE THREE BILLS OF LADING TO INDICATE THAT EACH LOT WAS PART OF A LARGER VOLUME SHIPMENT: SINCE THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE THREE LOTS WAS 172,280 POUNDS, THE SHIPMENT WAS SUBJECT TO ITEM 2195 OF QUOTATION 15-A WHICH NAMES ON THE COMMODITY TRANSPORTED A RATE OF $2.71 PER 100 POUNDS AND A VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 120,000 POUNDS.

THE ISSUE HERE IS ONE OF FACT: SHOULD THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE THREE LOTS OF CANNISTERS BE VIEWED AS ONE VOLUME SHIPMENT OR AS THREE SEPARATE VOLUME SHIPMENTS?

P.I.E. CONTENDS THAT THE MATERIALS WERE TENDERED AS THREE SEPARATE SHIPMENTS, POINTING OUT THAT THE BILLS OF LADING WERE NOT CROSS REFERENCED AS REQUIRED BY DEFENSE SUPPLY AGENCY REGULATIONS (DSAR), AND THAT THE LACK OF CROSS-REFERENCING INDICATES THAT EACH LOT WAS TENDERED AS A SINGLE SHIPMENT.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND TCD ASSERT THAT THE MATERIALS WERE TENDERED TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE CARRIER AS ONE SHIPMENT AND CITE THE SIGNED BILL OF LADING CORRECTION NOTICES (DD FORM 1352) AS EVIDENCE. THE CORRECTION NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON JUNE 27, 1968, FOR THE THREE BILLS OF LADING TO INDICATE THAT EACH LOT WAS PART OF A LARGER VOLUME SHIPMENT, AND ALL THREE OF THEM WERE ACCEPTED AND SIGNED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF P.I.E. ON AUGUST 5, 1970.

EVEN THOUGH THE THREE BILLS OF LADING ARE EVIDENCE OF THE TENDER OF VOLUME SHIPMENTS, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT A VOLUME MINUMUM IS DISTINGUISHED FROM A TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM IN THAT THE VOLUME RATE APPLIES WHEN A SHIPPER TENDERS THE VOLUME MINUMUM WEIGHT OF A COMMODITY FOR TRANSPORTATION AT ONE TIME, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY EXCEED THE CARRYING CAPICITY OF THE LARGEST VEHICLE AVAILABLE AND MUST BE TRANSPORTED IN TWO OR MORE VEHICLES; WHEREAS, A TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE QUANTITY WHICH A CARRIER CAN TRANSPORT IN A SINGLE VEHICLE. STOVES FROM ALABAMA AND TENNESSEE TO INTERSTATE POINTS, 4 M.C.C. 641, 643 (FOOTNOTE); GULF PORTS-ALABAMA, GEORGIA AND TENNESSEE COMMODITY RATES, 10 M.C.C. 106 (FOOTNOTE).

QUOTATION 15-A INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION A-11, MF-ICC 13. ITEM 110, SECTION 5, OF THE CLASSIFICATION DEFINES A SHIPMENT AS "*** A LOT OF FREIGHT TENDERED TO THE CARRIER BY ONE CONSIGNOR AT ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME FOR DELIVERY TO ONE CONSIGNEE AT ONE DESTINATION ON ONE BILL OF LADING." NEVERTHELESS, THE USE OF TWO OR MORE BILLS OF LADING FOR ONE SHIPMENT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF VOLUME RATES EVEN WHERE CLASSIFICATION RULES REQUIRE THE USE OF ONE BILL OF LADING. 36 COMP. GEN. 119 (1956). RATHER, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR SHIPMENT IS A VOLUME SHIPMENT OR A SERIES OF INDIVIDUAL SHIPMENTS TYPICALLY TURNS ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS INVOLVED.

IN WILLINGHAM V. SELIGMAN, 179 F.2D 257 (5TH CIR. 1950), MATERIAL REQUIRING TWO OR MORE CARRIER VEHICLES FOR TRANSPORTATION HAD BEEN TENDERED FOR SHIPMENT UNDER SEPARATE BILLS OF LADING COVERING EACH VEHICLE LOT AND THE BILLS OF LADING WERE CROSS-REFERENCED TO INDICATE THAT EACH BILL OF LADING WAS PART OF A VOLUME TENDER. THE COURT HELD THAT THE ISSUANCE OF SEPARATE BILLS OF LADING WAS NOT FATAL TO THE APPLICATION OF THE VOLUME RATE BECAUSE THE CROSS-REFERENCED BILLS OF LADING, CONSIDERED IN A COLLECTIVE SENSE, IN EFFECT CONSTITUTED ONLY THE ONE BILL OF LADING CONTEMPLATED BY THE TARIFF DEFINITION OF A SHIPMENT.

IN EXPOSITION COTTON MILLS V. SOUTHERN RY., 234 I.C.C. 441 (1939), SHIPMENTS WERE TENDERED AS CARLOADS, ACCEPTED AS CARLOADS AND HANDLED BY THE ORIGINATING CARRIER AS CARLOADS. THE SHIPPER'S AGENT PREPARED SEVERAL BILLS OF LADING FOR EACH OF THE CARLOAD LOTS. THE COMMISSION, RELYING UPON THE CARRIER'S STATUTORY DUTY TO ISSUE PROPER BILLS OF LADING, FOUND THE CARLOAD RATES APPLICABLE ON THE GROUND THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TARIFF REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF ONE BILL OF LADING FOR EACH CARLOAD LOT WAS DUE TO CARRIER NEGLIGENCE WHICH COULD NOT BE IMPUTED TO THE SHIPPER.

THE COURT OF CLAIMS DEALT WITH THE VOLUME SHIPMENT ISSUE IN J.H. ROSE TRUCK LINE, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 462 F.2D 502, 511 (CT. CL. 1972). THE FIRST GROUP OF BILLS OF LADING WERE PROPERLY CROSS-REFERENCED ACCORDING TO THE DSAR, SO THE LOTS INCLUDED THEREIN WERE FOUND TO CONSTITUTE A SINGLE SHIPMENT. A SECOND AND THIRD SET OF MULTIPLE BILLS OF LADING WERE NOT ADEQUATELY CROSS-REFERENCED AND A DEFENSE BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF VOLUME SHIPMENT RATES WAS DENIED. THE DENIAL TURNED ON THE FACT THAT THE CARRIER WAS NOT PUT ON NOTICE THAT IT WAS BEING TENDERED A LARGE SHIPMENT WHICH IT WAS EXPECTED TO TRANSPORT AS A SINGLE VOLUME SHIPMENT AT THE APPLICABLE VOLUME WEIGHT.

IN GOODMAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R.R., 21 I.C.C. 583 (1911), THE ISSUANCE OF MORE THAN ONE BILL OF LADING PRECLUDED THE APPLICATION OF ONE CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT. THERE, THE SHIPPER PREPARED TWO BILLS OF LADING COVERING TWO CARLOADS OF MACHINERY SHIPPED ON THE SAME DAY TO THE SAME CONSIGNEE. A RULE OF THE GOVERNING CLASSIFICATION PERMITTED THE APPLICATION OF THE CARLOAD RATE TO A SHIPMENT WEIGHING THE MINIMUM WEIGHT OR MORE; IT ALSO APPLIED WHEN THE MINIMUM WEIGHT WAS TENDERED IN LESS THAN TWO OR MORE FULL CARLOAD LOTS, PROVIDED THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS COVERED BY ONE BILL OF LADING. THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE SHIPPER'S POST-DELIVERY CONTENTION THAT THE TWO CARLOADS WERE IN FACT ONE SHIPMENT, AND FOUND INSTEAD THAT TWO CARS WERE INTENTIONALLY REQUESTED FOR SAFETY REASONS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SHIPPER'S ASSERTION THAT IT PREPARED TWO BILLS OF LADING ONLY IN ERROR.

IN DALLAS COTTON EXCHANGE V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RY., 163 I.C.C. 57 (1930), TWO SHIPMENTS OF COMPRESSED COTTON COVERED BY SEPARATE BILLS OF LADING WERE LOADED IN ONE CAR AT ONE TIME DESTINED FOR THE SAME CONSIGNEE. A RULE GOVERNING EXPORT TRAFFIC PERMITTED A SHIPPER TO SECURE A CARLOAD RATE WHERE A CAR IS FILLED WITH A NUMBER OF SHIPMENTS COVERED BY SEPARATE BILLS OF LADING BILLED TO ONE PACIFIC PORT OF EXPORT. THE SHIPPER ARGUED THAT THE DOMESTIC RULE REQUIRING THE USE OF ONE BILL OF LADING WAS DISCRIMINATORY AND ASKED THAT THE EXPORT-TRAFFIC RULE BE APPLIED TO DOMESTIC TRAFFIC AS WELL. WITHOUT PROOF OF THE NECESSITY FOR THE USE OF THE TWO BILLS OF LADING AND WITH RELIANCE ON GOODMAN, THE COMMISSION REFUSED.

THE DETERMINATIVE ISSUE IN THE CASES IS APPARENT. THE COURTS AND THE COMMISSION WILL UPHOLD THE APPLICABILITY OF VOLUME RATES EVEN WHERE MULTIPLE BILLS OF LADING ARE USED PROVIDED THE CARRIER HAS NOTICE THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS TENDERED AS A VOLUME SHIPMENT. IN WILLINGHAM, EXPOSITION, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST SET OF BILLS OF LADING IN J.H. ROSE, THE RECORD WAS CLEAR THAT VOLUME OR CARLOAD TENDERS WERE MADE AND ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE CARRIERS, EXCEPT FOR THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF A SINGLE BILL OF LADING. THEREFORE, THE COURTS AND THE COMMISSION JUSTIFIABLY REFUSE TO SUBORDINATE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION TO THE FORM.

BY COMPARISON IN DALLAS, GOODMAN, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER SHIPMENTS IN J.H. ROSE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE ARTICLES WERE ORIGINALLY TENDERED AND ACCEPTED AS ONE SHIPMENT. THE SHIPPER'S POST- DELIVERY CONTENTIONS THAT THEY WERE VOLUME SHIPMENTS WERE ATTEMPTS TO CREATE FACTS RATHER THAN REMEDIES OF DISCREPANCIES IN EXISTING FACTS. THIS LACK OF NOTICE, EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, OF VOLUME SHIPMENTS AND HENCE VOLUME RATES, MAY HAVE PREVENTED THE CARRIERS FROM MAKING APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS. TO PREVENT THIS POSSIBLE PREJUDICE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF CARRIER NEGLIGENCE, FAILURE OF NOTICE PRECLUDES THE USE OF VOLUME RATES.

THE INSTANT CASE FALLS WITHIN THE WILLINGHAM-EXPOSITION RATIONALE. THE BILL OF LADING CONTRACTS CONSTITUTE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS WERE TENDERED TO THE CARRIER AND ACCEPTED BY THE CARRIER AS INDIVIDUAL SHIPMENTS AND THE SHIPPING OFFICER'S FAILURE TO CROSS- REFERENCE THE BILLS OF LADING LENDS SUPPORT TO THIS CONCLUSION, BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO REFUTE THIS PRIMA FACIE SHOWING. BILL OF LADING CORRECTION NOTICES (DD FORM 1352), INDICATING THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS A LARGER VOLUME SHIPMENT, WERE ACCEPTED BY AND BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF P.I.E. BY ASSENTING TO THE CORRECTION, P.I.E. ADMITS THAT BOTH PARTIES CONTEMPLATED A LARGER VOLUME SHIPMENT IN FACT. SINCE P.I.E. HAS EVIDENCED AWARENESS OF THE ACTUAL FACTS, THE WILLINGHAM- EXPOSITION RATIONALE IS CONTROLLING AND THE MERE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT OF A SINGLE BILL OF LADING WILL NOT DEFEAT THE TRUE FACTS AND INTENTION OF THE PARTIES. SEE 52 COMP. GEN. 575 (1973).

P.I.E. ALSO CITES SINCLAIR REFINING CO. V. FORT WORTH & RIO GRANDE RY., 169 I.C.C. 421 (1930), APPARENTLY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE SHIPPER MUST PUT THE CARRIER ON NOTICE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS AT THE TIME THE SHIPMENT IS PICKED UP, WITH THE RESULT THAT A SUBSEQUENT CORRECTION CANNOT REMEDY AN ERRONEOUS BILL OF LADING. IN SINCLAIR THE CARRIER HAD NO NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE SHIPMENT; HERE, THE SHIPMENTS AS TENDERED WERE VOLUME SHIPMENTS AND THE SIGNED BILL OF LADING CORRECTION NOTICES INDICATE THAT P.I.E. AT LEAST HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A LARGER VOLUME SHIPMENT THAT QUITE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE MOVED IN THE SAME EQUIPMENT. THE DANGER OF UNFAIR SURPRISE THAT WORRIED THE COMMISSION IS SINCLAIR IS NOT PRESENT HERE; THUS, SINCLAIR IS INAPPOSITE.

P.I.E. ALSO POINTS OUT THAT WHEN A TARIFF RULE REQUIRES A SPECIFIC INDORSEMENT SUCH AS "EXCLUSIVE USE OF A VEHICLE" ON A BILL OF LADING, SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO CORRECT AN OMISSION OF THE REQUIRED INDORSEMENT. TYPICALLY THE TARIFF RULE PROVIDES FOR A BILL OF LADING ANNOTATION "EXCLUSIVE USE HAS BEEN ORDERED" AND THE TARIFF RULE MAKES NO PROVISION FOR MODIFYING THE BILL OF LADING AFTER DELIVERY HAS BEEN CONSUMMATED. THE CASE OF CAMPBELL "66" EXPRESS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 302 F.2D 270 (CT. CL. 1962), HELD THAT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TARIFF PROVISION REQUIRES AT THE VERY LEAST A TIMELY, CONTEMPORANEOUS STATEMENT OF THE REQUEST FOR EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE. WHILE P.I.E. SEEKS TO APPLY THE CAMPBELL "66" RULE TO THE INSTANT CASE, THE ANALOGY IS WITHOUT MERIT. HERE WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE RIGIDITY OF AN EXCLUSIVE USE TARIFF RULE WHICH CANNOT BE WAIVED, BUT WITH THE BROADER CONFINES OF A DOCTRINE SOMEWHAT RESPONSIVE TO THE EQUITIES OF A SITUATION. WHERE THE CARRIER IS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE OMISSION OF CROSS-REFERENCES, THERE IS NO NEED TO EXALT FORM OVER SUBSTANCE. THE FACT THAT A P.I.E. REPRESENTATIVE SIGNED THE BILL OF LADING CORRECTION NOTICE SOME 14 MONTHS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE SHIPMENT DOES NOT NEGATE ITS IMPORT - IT STILL REFLECTS P.I.E.'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT P.I.E. WAS AWARE THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS A LARGER VOLUME SHIPMENT. THAT KNOWLEDGE PRECLUDES ANY P.I.E. CLAIM THAT IT WAS PREJUDICED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC TARIFF MANDATING SUCH PERFUNCTORY COMPLIANCE, WE REJECT THE MECHANICAL RESULT OF A CAMPBELL "66"-TYPE ANALYSIS.

P.I.E. FINALLY ARGUES THAT THE SHIPPER IS BOUND BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REGULATIONS GOVERNING USE OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING FOR SHIPMENTS REQUIRING MORE THAN ONE UNIT OF TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT. DSAR 4500.3, PARAGRAPH 214013, PROVIDES, IN PERTINENT PART: "A. ONE BILL OF LADING. WHEN A SHIPMENT REQUIRING THE USE OF MORE THAN ONE UNIT OF TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT IS TENDERED TO A CARRIER AT ONE TIME AS AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND THE NECESSARY INFORMATION SUCH AS RECEIPT BY CARRIER, CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY BY CONSIGNEE, AND OTHER DATA, CAN BE SHOWN ON A SINGLE BILL OF LADING, ONLY ONE BILL OF LADING WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE ENTIRE SHIPMENT. THE NUMBER OF EACH UNIT OF EQUIPMENT AND THE QUANTITY OF FREIGHT LOADED IN OR ON EACH UNIT MUST BE SHOWN ON THE BILL OF LADING.

B. MORE THAN ONE BILL OF LADING. WHEN A VOLUME SHIPMENT REQUIRING THE USE OF MORE THAN ONE UNIT OF TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT IS TENDERED TO A CARRIER AT ONE TIME AS AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION, AND MORE THAN ONE BILL OF LADING IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT BY THE CARRIER, DELIVERY TO CONSIGNEE, AND OTHER DATA, EACH BILL OF LADING SO ISSUED WILL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE VOLUME RATE WHICH APPLIES, BE CROSS-REFERENCED TO INDICATE CLEARLY THAT IT COVERS A PORTION OF A VOLUME SHIPMENT SUBJECT TO THE VOLUME RATE WHICH APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE SHIPMENT. WHEN PLANNING FOR SHIPMENTS UNDER THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS THE NUMBER OF CROSS-REFERENCED BILLS OF LADING COVERING A VOLUME SHIPMENT SHOULD BE HELD TO A MINIMUM; HOWEVER, SUFFICIENT TONNAGE TO MEET THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE TENDERED AT ONE TIME IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE VOLUME RATE."

THOUGH THE SHIPPER INADVERTENTLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THESE REGULATIONS, THEY ARE ONLY INTERNAL INSTRUCTIONS DESIGNED TO INSURE UNIFORMITY IN POLICY. AGAIN, SINCE P.I.E. WAS NOT PREJUDICED, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR ALLOWING P.I.E.'S CLAIM.

WE FIND THEN THAT POST-DELIVERY CORRECTION NOTICES SIGNED BY THE CARRIER MAY BE USED TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED AND OMITTED CROSS REFERENCING WHEN MULTIPLE BILLS OF LADING ARE USED FOR A VOLUME SHIPMENT.

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO APPARENT REASON TO REVISE THE TWO SETTLEMENTS NOR TO REVISE THE OVERCHARGE COLLECTED BY DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, TCD'S ACTION ON YOUR THREE CLAIMS IS AFFIRMED.