B-146209, JUN. 8, 1964

B-146209: Jun 8, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Julie Matta
(202) 512-4023
MattaJ@gao.gov

 

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

INASMUCH AS NO JOINT THROUGH RATE WAS NAMED ON THE COMMODITY FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION. WE HELD THAT RIVERSIDE WAS AN INTERMEDIATE POINT BETWEEN DOYLINE AND CAMP PENDLETON. FROM AND TO WHICH THERE WAS A THROUGH RATE OF $5.73 NAMED. IF THIS WERE TRUE. TO WHICH A THROUGH RATE IS NAMED ON THE COMMODITY. IS NOT ON A GEOGRAPHICALLY DIRECT (STRAIGHT?). PROVIDES: "WHEN ANY POINT OF DESTINATION IS NOT PROVIDED IN THIS QUOTATION WITH A RATE ON A GIVEN ARTICLE FROM A PARTICULAR ORIGIN OVER A PARTICULAR ROUTE. SUCH DESTINATION IS BETWEEN THE CONSIDERED ORIGIN AND A POINT TO WHICH A RATE ON THE ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED HEREIN OVER THE SAME ROUTE FROM SUCH ORIGIN. APPLY ON SUCH ARTICLE THE RATE TO THE NEXT MORE-DISTANT POINT TO WHICH A RATE IS NAMED THEREON OVER THE CONSIDERED ROUTE THROUGH THE INTERMEDIATE POINT.

B-146209, JUN. 8, 1964

TO WESTERN GILLETTE, INC:

YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 11, 1964, FILE G-02347, REQUESTS REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE OF AUGUST 12, 1963, TK-735938, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF $1,417.77 ($1,407.77) CLAIMED IN CONNECTION WITH SHIPMENTS MADE UNDER GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING WY 6206909 AND WY-6206910, AND REFERS TO OUT DECISION OF JUNE 27, 1962, B 146209, TO WESTERN TRUCK LINES, LTD.

IN THAT DECISION WHICH CONCERNED THE CHARGES PROPERLY ALLOWABLE ON AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE SHIPMENT, WE SUSTAINED THE USE OF THE RATE OF $5.73 IN COMPUTING CHARGES ON THE SHIPMENTS OF EXPLOSIVES TRANSPORTED UNDER THE TWO BILLS OF LADING MENTIONED ABOVE FROM DOYLINE, LOUISIANA, TO RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA. INASMUCH AS NO JOINT THROUGH RATE WAS NAMED ON THE COMMODITY FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION, WE HELD THAT RIVERSIDE WAS AN INTERMEDIATE POINT BETWEEN DOYLINE AND CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA, FROM AND TO WHICH THERE WAS A THROUGH RATE OF $5.73 NAMED, WHICH APPLIED VIA A ROUTE THROUGH RIVERSIDE.

YOU STATE THAT IN ORDER FOR SUCH RATE TO BE APPLICABLE THE "INTERMEDIATE POINT MUST BE IN A DIRECT LINE OF MOVEMENT TO THE CONSIDERED DESTINATION," BY WHICH YOU APPEAR TO MEAN A GEOGRAPHICALLY DIRECT LINE. WE FIND NO SUCH REQUIREMENT, BUT IF THIS WERE TRUE, THERE WOULD BE NO APPLICATION OF THE INTERMEDIATE RULE IN THIS CASE AS CAMP PENDLETON, TO WHICH A THROUGH RATE IS NAMED ON THE COMMODITY, IS NOT ON A GEOGRAPHICALLY DIRECT (STRAIGHT?) LINE DRAWN THROUGH DOYLINE AND RIVERSIDE.

ITEM 110, ROCKY MOUNTAIN U.S. GOVERNMENT QUOTATION NO. 52, I.C.C. NO. 5, PROVIDES:

"WHEN ANY POINT OF DESTINATION IS NOT PROVIDED IN THIS QUOTATION WITH A RATE ON A GIVEN ARTICLE FROM A PARTICULAR ORIGIN OVER A PARTICULAR ROUTE, AND SUCH DESTINATION IS BETWEEN THE CONSIDERED ORIGIN AND A POINT TO WHICH A RATE ON THE ARTICLE IS PUBLISHED HEREIN OVER THE SAME ROUTE FROM SUCH ORIGIN, APPLY ON SUCH ARTICLE THE RATE TO THE NEXT MORE-DISTANT POINT TO WHICH A RATE IS NAMED THEREON OVER THE CONSIDERED ROUTE THROUGH THE INTERMEDIATE POINT, * * *.'

THERE IS NO REFERENCE MADE IN ITEM 110 TO A "DIRECT LINE OF MOVEMENT," THE EXPRESSIONS USED BEING "OVER A PARTICULAR ROUTE" AND "OVER THE CONSIDERED ROUTE.' THUS, THE WORDS "OVER THE CONSIDERED ROUTE" CAN REFER ONLY TO THE ROUTE NAMED IN THE QUOTATION (ROUTE NO. 1542). ALONG THIS ROUTE, WHICH PASSES DIRECTLY THROUGH RIVERSIDE, THE NEXT MORE-DISTANT POINT TO WHICH A RATE IS NAMED ON EXPLOSIVES IS CAMP PENDLETON, AND THAT RATE ($5.73) IS APPLICABLE TO THIS SHIPMENT. THE ONLY SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS HELD THE INTERMEDIATE APPLICATION TO THE SHORTEST OR THE MOST DIRECT LINES OF MOVEMENT HAVE BEEN THOSE IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT TARIFF DID NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC ROUTING, EITHER BY A PROVISION THAT THE RATE WOULD APPLY OVER ALL LINES PARTIES TO THE TARIFF OR BY A PROVISION THAT THE RATE WOULD APPLY OVER SPECIFIED LINES AND THEIR CONNECTIONS. CITIZENS GAS AND COKE UTILITY V. ALTEN AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD, 281 I.C.C. 705, 708 (1951); GULF MINERALS CORP. V. LOUISIANA AND ARKANSAS RAILWAY CO., 288 I.C.C. 285, 288 (1953); MANDELL COMPANY V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., 286 I.C.C. 655, 659 (1952); ASSOCIATE GROCERS OF COLORADO, INC. V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, 300 I.C.C. 17, 21 (1957). MANIFESTLY, SUCH A SITUATION DOES EXIST IN THE PRESENT CASE.

ACCORDINGLY, OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE OF AUGUST 12, 1963, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $1,417.77 ($1,407.77) IS SUSTAINED.

Nov 14, 2018

Nov 9, 2018

Nov 8, 2018

Nov 7, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here