B-142342, SEP. 14, 1960

B-142342, SEP. 14, 1960

TO STRICKLAND SYSTEM:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 30, 1960, WHEREIN YOU REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 7, 1960, B-142342, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR $211.80, SUBMITTED UNDER YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. 6982-A. THE BASIS FOR OUR DECLINATION WAS THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF CURTIS LIGHTING, INC. V. MID-STATES FREIGHT LINES, INC., 303 I.C.C. 576. YOU CONTEND THAT THAT CASE TURNED ON QUESTIONS OF REASONABLENESS AND IS THUS WITHOUT EFFECT SINCE THE RULING BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE CASE OF T.I.M.E., INC. V. UNITED STATES, 359 U.S. 464.

ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS OF THE CHARGES COLLECTED WAS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE, THE DECISION BY THE COMMISSION IN THAT CASE CONCERNED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TARIFF PROVISIONS INVOLVED. DISPOSITION OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF APPLICABILITY WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELL-SETTLED RULE THAT THE APPLICABLE RATE MAY BE DETERMINED UNDER AN ALLEGATION OF UNREASONABLENESS. FOSTER WHEELER CORP. V. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY, 272 I.C.C. 119. THE CASE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ONE GOVERNED BY THE RULE OF THE T.I.M.E. CASE. THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN THE CURTIS LIGHTING CASE IS ONE WHICH WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED, AND ARE CONTINUING TO APPLY, IN THE AUDIT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNTS OF COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE. SO LONG AS THE CASE REMAINS AS THE SOLE OUTSTANDING AUTHORITY ON THE PARTICULAR QUESTION INVOLVED, WE SEE NO REASON TO DEPART FROM THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COMMISSION.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS URGED IN YOUR LETTER HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND FOUND INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ALLOWANCE OF THE CHARGES CLAIMED. UPON RECONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, OUR DECISION OF JUNE 7, WHICH SUSTAINED THE SETTLEMENT DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, IS AFFIRMED.