B-130115, AUG. 31, 1959
Highlights
- CARGO AND OVERCHARGE CLAIMS: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 16. THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE OVERPAYMENT DETERMINED IS REPORTED NOW TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED. YOU STATE THAT NO SUCH PENALTY WAS CLAIMED IN YOUR ORIGINAL BILLING. IT IS TRUE THAT YOUR CLAIM FOR 20 PERCENT PENALTY CHARGES WAS NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR ORIGINAL BILLING BUT WAS FIRST PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 8. WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 27. HAVE BEEN COVERED PREVIOUSLY. NO NEW EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED. THERE APPEARS NO PROPER BASIS FOR MODIFYING OUR PRIOR CONCLUSION AND IT IS AFFIRMED. IF YOU STILL ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A 20 PERCENT PENALTY CHARGE IS FOR PAYMENT BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF PACKAGING USED IN MAKING THE SHIPMENT AND WISH TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER.
B-130115, AUG. 31, 1959
TO FELIX E. MENDEL, JR., DIRECTOR--- CARGO AND OVERCHARGE CLAIMS:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 16, 1959, CLAIM NO. 056 -135, PRO NO. 33751, IN WHICH YOU, IN EFFECT, REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 27, 1959, B-130115, SUSTAINING OUR DETERMINATION OF AN OVERPAYMENT OF $178 ON YOUR UNNUMBERED BILL OF JUNE 1953, COVERING CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION FROM RICHMOND HILL, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK, TO WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA, OF ITEMS DESCRIBED ON GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. AF-1371920, AS "AIRCRAFT PARTS.' THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE OVERPAYMENT DETERMINED IS REPORTED NOW TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED.
IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER, YOU CALL ATTENTION TO A STATEMENT IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 27, TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU ORIGINALLY ASSESSED AND COLLECTED A PENALTY CHARGE UNDER AUTHORITY OF RULE 5, SECTION 6, OF NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION A-1, MF I.C.C. NO. 3, FOR THE USE OF THE CANS. YOU STATE THAT NO SUCH PENALTY WAS CLAIMED IN YOUR ORIGINAL BILLING. IT IS TRUE THAT YOUR CLAIM FOR 20 PERCENT PENALTY CHARGES WAS NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR ORIGINAL BILLING BUT WAS FIRST PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 8, 1956, CLAIMS NOS. 056-135 AND 056-136, PROS. NOS. 33751 AND 45447. SEE OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 8, 1958, B-130115. THIS FACT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PERTINENT TO THE MERITS OF YOUR CLAIM, WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 27, 1959, AND AUGUST 8, 1958, B 130115.
SINCE THE OBJECTIONS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 16, 1959, HAVE BEEN COVERED PREVIOUSLY, AND NO NEW EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED, THERE APPEARS NO PROPER BASIS FOR MODIFYING OUR PRIOR CONCLUSION AND IT IS AFFIRMED. HOWEVER, IF YOU STILL ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A 20 PERCENT PENALTY CHARGE IS FOR PAYMENT BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF PACKAGING USED IN MAKING THE SHIPMENT AND WISH TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER, YOU ARE PRIVILEGED TO FILE A CLAIM FOR SUCH PENALTY WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF THE TYPE OF PACKAGING USED AND THE BASIS FOR YOUR CLAIM THAT UNDER THE PERTINENT TARIFF PROVISION PAYMENT OF SUCH PENALTY WOULD BE PROPER AND IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE.