B-134259, MAY 14, 1958
Highlights
TO CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 25. OUR SETTLEMENT OF THE BILLS IN QUESTION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE SHIPMENTS WAS MOVING FOR 93 PERCENT MILITARY USE AND 7 PERCENT CIVIL USE AND SETTLEMENT ON SUCH BASIS WAS SUSTAINED IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 27. IN WHICH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO YOUR CLAIM AND THE BASIS FOR OUR ACTION WERE FULLY SET FORTH. UK-14924 ON THE BASIS THAT SUCH PROPERTY WAS MOVING FOR 100 PERCENT CIVIL USE. IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF SUCH 28 PERCENT OF THE LEND-LEASE MATERIAL PROCURED UNDER REQUISITION NO. UK-19000 IS IDENTICAL TO THAT PROCURED UNDER REQUISITION NO.
B-134259, MAY 14, 1958
TO CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 25, 1958, FILE N-28774-G A, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THAT PORTION OF OUR DECISION B 134259, DATED MARCH 27, 1958, WHICH PERTAINS TO YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS NOS. 28774-A AND 28774-B.
OUR SETTLEMENT OF THE BILLS IN QUESTION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE SHIPMENTS WAS MOVING FOR 93 PERCENT MILITARY USE AND 7 PERCENT CIVIL USE AND SETTLEMENT ON SUCH BASIS WAS SUSTAINED IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 27, 1958, IN WHICH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO YOUR CLAIM AND THE BASIS FOR OUR ACTION WERE FULLY SET FORTH.
IN REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER YOU REITERATE YOUR CONTENTION THAT AN ADDITIONAL 28 PERCENT OF THE LEND-LEASE PROPERTY PROCURED UNDER LEND-LEASE REQUISITION NO. UK-19000 ALLOCATED FOR "SHIPYARD PLANT AND CONSTRUCTION" SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS MOVING FOR CIVIL USE BECAUSE WE SETTLED CLAIMS COVERING SHIPMENTS OF PROPERTY PROCURED UNDER LEND-LEASE REQUISITION NO. UK-14924 ON THE BASIS THAT SUCH PROPERTY WAS MOVING FOR 100 PERCENT CIVIL USE. IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF SUCH 28 PERCENT OF THE LEND-LEASE MATERIAL PROCURED UNDER REQUISITION NO. UK-19000 IS IDENTICAL TO THAT PROCURED UNDER REQUISITION NO. UK-14924.
OUR DECISION OF MARCH 27, 1958, WAS NOT INTENDED TO IMPLY THAT NO PORTION OF THE MATERIAL COVERED BY REQUISITION NO. UK-14924 WAS INTENDED FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL USE. ON THE CONTRARY, FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE INFORMATION IN THE REQUISITION DISCLOSES THAT A PORTION OF THE MATERIAL WAS USED AS REPLACEMENTS FOR SUPPLIES OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. HOWEVER, THE REQUISITION CONTAINED INDEFINITE LANGUAGE WHICH DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO PRECISE APPLICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHAT PROPORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY COVERED THEREBY WERE FOR MILITARY OR CIVIL USE AND FOR THAT REASON IT IS STATED IN OUR DECISION THAT WE "GAVE EFFECT TO A DETERMINATION" THAT THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THAT REQUISITION WAS MOVING FOR 100 PERCENT CIVIL USE. SECTION 2C OF REQUISITION NO. UK 19000, AFFORDING SPACE FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF "ARMY, NAVY, AIR (AND) OTHER," USE, WAS NOT QUALIFIED IN THE SAME MANNER AS SECTION 2C OF REQUISITION NO. UK-14924, WHICH CONTAINED THE WORDS "FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TOOL HANDLES," AS EXPLAINED IN ANOTHER PART OF THE REQUISITION LISTING A VARIETY OF MIXED USES. WE VIEWED THAT RECORD AS SUPPORTING A DETERMINATION OF A TOTAL CIVIL USE, ALTHOUGH SOME DOUBT EXISTED AS TO SOME INSEPARABLE PORTIONS OF THE MATERIAL COVERED BY THE REQUISITION. IN REQUISITION NO. UK-19000 NO DIFFICULTY IS PRESENTED IN IDENTIFYING THAT PART OF THE MATERIAL TO BE DEVOTED TO "SHIPYARD PLANT AND CONSTRUCTION" WHICH CLEARLY WAS ENTITLED TO A "NAVAL" AND, IN A BROADER SENSE,"MILITARY" CHARACTERIZATION.
THE CONTENTS OF YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 25, 1958, HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED AND YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCE THAT WERE NOT FULLY CONSIDERED IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISION. ACCORDINGLY, THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THAT DECISION IS REAFFIRMED.