B-146511, NOV. 22, 1961

B-146511, NOV. 22, 1961

TO A. B. JAMES FREIGHT LINES:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 18, 1961, FILE NO. N- 482/48, UC-150, 183515, REQUESTING REVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT DATED JUNE 15, 1961 (CLAIM TK-711691), WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $32.15, PER YOUR BILL NO. UC-150 N-482 183515, REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES IN THE AMOUNTS OF $20.76 AND $11.39 IN CONNECTION WITH SERVICES PERFORMED ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING N 30532294 AND N-30530866, RESPECTIVELY. YOU LIMIT YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW TO THAT PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT PERTAINING TO THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES CLAIMED ON THE SHIPMENT MOVING UNDER BILL OF LADING N-30532294 ($20.74 RATHER THAN $20.76), AND YOU WITHDRAW YOUR CLAIM INCIDENT TO THE SHIPMENT MOVING UNDER BILL OF LADING N-30530866.

BILL OF LADING N-30532294, DATED MARCH 22, 1948, COVERED A SHIPMENT OF MIXED CARGO WEIGHING 9,630 POUNDS FROM THE NAVAL AIR STATION AT NORTH ISLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO THE NAVAL AIR STATION AT ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA. THE FACE OF THE BILL OF LADING BEARS THE FOLLOWING PROVISION CONCERNING APPLICABLE TARIFFS AND RATES:

"SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE TARIFF RATES LAWFULLY ON FILE WITH ICC AND/OR CRC HIGHWAY CARRIERS TARIFF NUMBER 2, AS A MAXIMUM.'

FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, YOU ORIGINALLY BILLED AND COLLECTED CHARGES OF $152.05 COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A COMBINATION OF RATES CONSTRUCTED FROM NORTH ISLAND TO SAN DIEGO AND THENCE TO ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA, AS PROVIDED IN A. B. JAMES QUOTATION DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1947. IN OUR SUBSEQUENT AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHER IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPER CHARGES SHOULD BE $131.31, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICABLE THROUGH SINGLE FACTOR LESS THAN TRUCKLOAD CLASS RATES, SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 10,000 POUNDS, AS PROVIDED IN ITEM 500 D, SECTION 2, CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION HIGHWAY CARRIERS TARIFF NO. 2, BASED UPON 575-600 MILES COMPUTED VIA CORONADO IN CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION MILEAGE TARIFF NO. 3. UPON YOUR FAILURE TO REFUND THE OVERCHARGE OF $20.74, IT WAS DEDUCTED FROM AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE. THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF SUCH DEDUCTION IS THE SUBJECT OF YOUR PRESENT LETTER.

IT IS UNDERSTOOD SOME QUESTION EXISTS AS TO WHAT EFFECT THE PUBLICATION OF THE RATES SET FORTH IN YOUR QUOTATION OF NOVEMBER 8, 1947, HAD UPON THOSE QUOTED IN YOUR EARLIER QUOTATION OF MAY 12, 1947, WHICH WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY CANCELLED THEREBY. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS YOUR PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNED, IT APPEARS THE MATTER PROPERLY MAY BE DISPOSED OF UPON THE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER YOU ARE BOUND TO PROTECT, AS THE HIGHEST APPLICABLE RATES, THE RATES NAMED IN CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION TARIFF NO. 2.

SINCE THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION ON THE BILL OF LADING INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND MADE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE THE APPLICABLE RATES PUBLISHED IN CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION TARIFF NO. 2 AS THE HIGHEST RATES THE GOVERNMENT COULD LEGALLY BE CALLED UPON TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE FURNISHED, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE RATES USED IN OUR AUDIT PRODUCED THE MAXIMUM CHARGES ALLOWABLE. SEE, IN THIS CONNECTION, OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1959, B-138933, TO YOU.

THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES ON THE SHIPMENT MOVING UNDER BILL OF LADING N-30532294 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOREGOING AND, ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SUSTAINED.