B-144503, JAN. 22, 1962

B-144503: Jan 22, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

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

LTD.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 8. SINCE THE TRAILER USED FOR THE SHIPMENT WAS FULLY LOADED. TRUCKLOAD RATES WERE APPLIED AND OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON AUTHORITY OF CURTIS LIGHTING. ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON A SHIPMENT WHERE THE VEHICLE IS LOADED TO FULL CAPACITY. WHICH PROVIDES THE MINIMUM CHARGE FOR EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE WAS NOT APPLICABLE. YOU AGAIN URGE THAT THE CURTIS LIGHTING DECISION HAS NO BEARING IN RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT AND CONTEND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR NOT APPLYING THE MINIMUM CHARGE PROVIDED IN ITEM 935. YOU MERELY STATE THAT IN YOUR OPINION THE HOLDING IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT AND DO NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR OPINION.

B-144503, JAN. 22, 1962

TO WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 8, 1961, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE HOLDING IN OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 29, 1961, B 144503, AFFIRMING OUR PRIOR DECISIONS OF APRIL 24, MAY 29, OCTOBER 2, 1961, B-144503, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM (G 02555) FOR $516.80 ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE ON A SHIPMENT WHICH MOVED IN A FULLY LOADED TRAILER. SINCE THE TRAILER USED FOR THE SHIPMENT WAS FULLY LOADED, TRUCKLOAD RATES WERE APPLIED AND OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON AUTHORITY OF CURTIS LIGHTING, INC. V. MID-STATES FREIGHT LINES, C., 303 I.C.C. 576, WHICH HELD THAT EXCLUSIVE-USE TARIFF CHARGES, DESIGNED TO ACCORD TRUCKLOAD SERVICE TO LESS-THAN TRUCKLOAD SHIPMENTS, ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON A SHIPMENT WHERE THE VEHICLE IS LOADED TO FULL CAPACITY.

IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS WE EXPLAINED WHY ITEM 935 OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN MOTOR TARIFF BUREAU TARIFF NO. 20-A, MF-I.C.C. NO. 79, WHICH PROVIDES THE MINIMUM CHARGE FOR EXCLUSIVE-USE SERVICE WAS NOT APPLICABLE. YOU AGAIN URGE THAT THE CURTIS LIGHTING DECISION HAS NO BEARING IN RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT AND CONTEND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR NOT APPLYING THE MINIMUM CHARGE PROVIDED IN ITEM 935. YOU MERELY STATE THAT IN YOUR OPINION THE HOLDING IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT AND DO NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR OPINION. SINCE IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE CURTIS LIGHTING DECISION PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION OF ITEM 935 TO VEHICLES LOADED TO FULL CAPACITY AND AS YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO EVIDENCE NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED, WE PERCEIVE NO PROPER BASIS, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, FOR MODIFYING OUR PRIOR DECISIONS.

HOWEVER, THE PROPRIETY OF PAYMENT OF EXCLUSIVE-USE CHARGES FOR A SHIPMENT WHICH MOVED IN A FULLY LOADED TRAILER IS PRESENTLY PENDING IN T.I.M.E., INC. V. UNITED STATES, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, LUBBOCK DIVISION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2626, ET ., AND IN CAMPBELL "66" EXPRESS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, COURT OF CLAIMS NO. 296-59. IN THE EVENT THE FINAL JUDICIAL DECISION IN THESE CASES IS ADVERSE TO THE UNITED STATES AND YOU FEEL BASED UPON SUCH FINAL DECISIONS THAT YOUR CLAIM IS PROPERLY FOR ALLOWANCE, WE WILL, UPON YOUR REQUEST, RECONSIDER OUR CONCLUSION HEREIN.