B-180016, FEB 20, 1974

B-180016: Feb 20, 1974

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

A SHIPMENT HAVING BOTH ORIGIN AND DESTINATION WITHIN ONE SPECIFIED AREA IN THE DESCRIPTION OF AREAS SECTION OF THE ITEM IS SUBJECT TO ONLY ONE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE. THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION WAS TRANSPORTED FROM SYOSSET. DEPENDING UPON WHETHER THE ORIGIN AND/OR DESTINATION OF THE SHIPMENT IS WITHIN AN AREA DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A OF THE ITEM OR IS WITHIN AN AREA DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE B OF THE ITEM. THE CARRIER'S ORIGINAL BILL FOR THE CHARGES ON THIS SHIPMENT INCLUDED TWO OF THESE ITEM 200 ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES (COMPUTED AT THE 50- CENT RATE) APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ORIGIN OF THE SHIPMENT WAS LOCATED IN ONE AREA DESCRIBED IN ITEM 200 AND THE DESTINATION OF THE SHIPMENT WAS LOCATED IN ANOTHER AREA SEPARATELY DESCRIBED IN THE ITEM.

B-180016, FEB 20, 1974

UNDER ITEM 200-C, SUPPLEMENT 8, MOVERS' & WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA GOVERNMENT RATE TENDER I.C.C. NO. 1-V, A SHIPMENT HAVING BOTH ORIGIN AND DESTINATION WITHIN ONE SPECIFIED AREA IN THE DESCRIPTION OF AREAS SECTION OF THE ITEM IS SUBJECT TO ONLY ONE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE.

TO TRANS COUNTRY VAN LINES, INC.:

TRANS COUNTRY VAN LINES' LETTER OF OCTOBER 15, 1973, FILE P.Q. 38637 R-12 -973, ASKS FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1973, WHICH DISALLOWED A SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES OF $70 UNDER BILL NO. 38637, GAO CLAIM FILE TK 957928.

THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION WAS TRANSPORTED FROM SYOSSET, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO CALVERTON, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. ITEM 200 OF MOVERS' & WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA GOVERNMENT RATE TENDER I.C.C. NO. 1- V, WHICH GOVERNED THE INDIVIDUAL RATE TENDER APPLICABLE TO THIS SHIPMENT, PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE ON ALL SHIPMENTS HAVING AN ORIGIN AND/OR DESTINATION IN THE CITIES DESCRIBED IN THE ITEM, BASED ON A RATE OF 30 CENTS OR 50 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER THE ORIGIN AND/OR DESTINATION OF THE SHIPMENT IS WITHIN AN AREA DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A OF THE ITEM OR IS WITHIN AN AREA DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE B OF THE ITEM.

THE CARRIER'S ORIGINAL BILL FOR THE CHARGES ON THIS SHIPMENT INCLUDED TWO OF THESE ITEM 200 ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES (COMPUTED AT THE 50- CENT RATE) APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ORIGIN OF THE SHIPMENT WAS LOCATED IN ONE AREA DESCRIBED IN ITEM 200 AND THE DESTINATION OF THE SHIPMENT WAS LOCATED IN ANOTHER AREA SEPARATELY DESCRIBED IN THE ITEM. THE CHARGES AS BILLED WERE PAID BY THE NAVY FINANCE CENTER.

IN THE AUDIT HERE, A NOTICE OF OVERCHARGE FOR $75.60 WAS ISSUED TO TRANS COUNTRY VAN LINES, OF WHICH $5.60 REPRESENTED AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE BILLED RATE FOR THE LINE-HAUL CHARGES, AND THE BALANCE, $70, REPRESENTED ONE OF THE TWO ITEM 200 ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY BILLED AND PAID. THE CARRIER REFUNDED $5.60, AND UPON ITS FAILURE TO REFUND THE ADDITIONAL $70, THAT AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED FROM REVENUE OTHERWISE DUE TRANS COUNTRY VAN LINES FOR OTHER SERVICES.

AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, THE CARRIER'S CLAIM FOR THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED WAS DENIED AND IT HAS ASKED FOR REVIEW. NO ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENT IN THE LINE-HAUL CHARGES AND THERE IS NO ISSUE ABOUT THE USE OF THE 50-CENT RATE FOR COMPUTATION OF THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE. WE ASSUME, THEREFORE, THAT THE ONLY QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER ITEM 200 AUTHORIZED ONLY ONE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE ON THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION OR WHETHER IT AUTHORIZED TWO SUCH CHARGES AS CONTENDED BY TRANS COUNTRY.

ITEM 200-C, SUPPLEMENT NO. 8, MOVERS' & WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA GOVERNMENT RATE TENDER I.C.C. NO. 1-V, WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE SHIPMENT MOVED. THE INITIAL LANGUAGE PROVIDES:

"ON ALL SHIPMENTS HAVING AN ORIGIN AND/OR DESTINATION IN THE CITIES AND AREAS DESCRIBED BELOW, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CHARGE WILL BE APPLICABLE. ..."

THIS LANGUAGE, STANDING ALONE AND GIVEN ITS LITERAL MEANING, WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE WOULD APPLY ONLY ONCE ON ANY SHIPMENT HAVING AN ORIGIN, OR A DESTINATION, OR BOTH ORIGIN AND DESTINATION, IN THE CITIES AND AREAS DESCRIBED IN THE ITEM. HOWEVER, NOTE 1, WHICH FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE LANGUAGE QUOTED ABOVE, PROVIDES:

"WHEN BOTH ORIGIN AND DESTINATION ARE WITHIN ONE (1) SPECIFIED AREA (SEE DESCRIPTION OF AREAS NOTE) LISTED BELOW, CHARGE WILL BE APPLICABLE ONLY ONCE SUBJECT TO THE GREATER CHARGE EITHER AT ORIGIN OR DESTINATION."

THE AREAS "LISTED BELOW" ARE IN THE "DESCRIPTION OF AREAS" SECTION OF THE ITEM WHICH INCLUDES SCHEDULE A, SCHEDULE B, AND THE NOTE PARENTHETICALLY REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISION QUOTED ABOVE, WHICH EITHER LIMITS OR ENLARGES THE DESCRIPTIONS IN SCHEDULES A AND B. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE IS SAID TO APPLY ONLY ONCE ON A SHIPMENT HAVING BOTH ORIGIN AND DESTINATION WITHIN ONE SPECIFIED AREA "LISTED BELOW," IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE CHARGE WOULD, BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION, APPLY TWICE ON A SHIPMENT HAVING AN ORIGIN IN ONE SPECIFIC AREA "LISTED BELOW" AND A DESTINATION IN ANOTHER, DIFFERENT SPECIFIED AREA "LISTED BELOW." FOR EXAMPLE, A SHIPMENT ORIGINATING IN AN AREA DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A AND TERMINATING IN AN AREA DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE B, OR IN A SCHEDULE B AREA DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE FOLLOWING SCHEDULES A AND B, WOULD, BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION, SEEM TO BE SUBJECT TO TWO ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES.

THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION ORIGINATED IN NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK, AND TERMINATED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. SCHEDULE A DOES NOT DESCRIBE ANY AREA FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK THAT INCLUDES EITHER OF THESE COUNTIES AND NEITHER DOES THE NOTE FOLLOWING SCHEDULES A AND B. SCHEDULE B, HOWEVER, FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK, SPECIFIES THE SINGLE AREA "NEW YORK CITY AND INCLUDING ANY POINT IN NASSAU, SUFFOLK, AND WESTCHESTER COUNTIES." THE ORIGIN AND DESTINATION OF THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT WERE WITHIN THIS ONE SPECIFIED AREA AND BY THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF NOTE 1 OF THE ITEM, QUOTED ABOVE, THE SHIPMENT WAS SUBJECT TO ONLY ONE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE.

IN THE LETTER REQUESTING REVIEW, TRANS COUNTRY REFERS TO THE PROVISIONS OF ITEM 200-B, SUPPLEMENT 5, GOVERNMENT RATE TENDER I.C.C. NO. 1-V, AS SUPPORTING ITS POSITION THAT TWO ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE APPLICABLE TO THIS SHIPMENT. ITEM 200-B WAS NOT APPLICABLE, OF COURSE, TO THIS SHIPMENT BUT IF IT HAD BEEN, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ITEM AS IT THEN READ WOULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED THE PROPOSITION THAT TWO ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT.

AT THE TIME ITEM 200-B WAS IN EFFECT, THE NOTE FOLLOWING SCHEDULES A AND B, AND WHICH WAS PARENTHETICALLY REFERRED TO IN NOTE 1 OF THE ITEM, READ, IN RELEVANT PART:

"FOR APPLICATION OF THIS ITEM ... BERGEN, ESSEX, HUDSON, MERCER, MIDDLESEX, MORRIS, PASSAIC AND UNION COUNTIES, N.J. AND COLUMBIA, DUTCHESS, GREENE, PUTNAM, ROCKLAND, SULLIVAN AND ULSTER COUNTIES, N.Y. WILL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE NEW YORK CITY, N.Y. AREA. ..."

AT THAT TIME, THE NEW YORK CITY AREA, BY DEFINITION IN SCHEDULE B, INCLUDED NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES. THE EFFECT OF THE NOTE, THEN, FOR PURPOSES OF "APPLICATION OF THIS ITEM," WAS TO EXTEND THE NEW YORK CITY AREA DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE B (WHICH INCLUDED NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES) TO INCLUDE THE NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK COUNTIES THAT WERE DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A AND WERE FOLLOWED BY PARENTHETICAL REFERENCES TO THE NOTE.

THESE PROVISIONS WERE EXTENSIVELY REVISED WHEN ITEM 200-C WAS ISSUED AND THEREAFTER A SHIPMENT ORIGINATING IN ONE OF THE NEW JERSEY OR NEW YORK COUNTIES DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A AND DESTINED TO THE NEW YORK CITY AREA DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE B WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO TWO ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT ONLY A SINGLE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGE WAS APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT BECAUSE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF BOTH 200-B AND 200-C, THE SHIPMENT ORIGINATED AND TERMINATED WITHIN THE SINGLE AREA SPECIFIED FOR NEW YORK CITY AND INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES.

FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE SETTLEMENT IN QUESTION AND IT IS SUSTAINED.