B-135147, SEP. 5, 1962
Highlights
THE SETTLEMENT WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 25. OF THESE SHIPMENTS 28 WERE CONSIGNED ORIGINALLY TO SEATTLE. THE REMAINDER OF THE SHIPMENTS WERE TRANSPORTED DIRECTLY FROM BAYTOWN TO THEIR ULTIMATE DESTINATION. ON AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS IN OUR OFFICE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CHARGES SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A COMBINATION OF RATES OVER SEATTLE. WAS PROPERLY FOR APPLICATION. SINCE THE SECTION 22 QUOTATION CONTAINING THE RATE USED AS ONE FACT OR IN THE COMBINATION RATE WAS NOT FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. A QUOTATION RATE MAY ALSO BE COMBINED WITH A LOCAL TARIFF IF THE QUOTATION IS DESIGNED TO BE USED IN THAT MANNER.'. IN THE PRESENT CASE CHARGES WERE ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND PAID ON THE BASIS OF A COMBINATION OF PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES OVER NOYES.
B-135147, SEP. 5, 1962
TO NEW YORK CENTRAL SYSTEM:
IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 11, 1962, FILE AG-960614-54, YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 23, 1958, IN WHICH WE DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $3,376.70 REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SEVERAL CARLOADS OF SALVABLE VEHICLES WHICH MOVED FROM FORT CHURCHILL, MANITOBA, CANADA, TO TOLEDO, OHIO, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. WY-2698477, DATED APRIL 28, 1954. THE SETTLEMENT WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 25, 1958, B-135147.
IN YOUR PRESENT REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION YOU CITE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE UNITED STATES, COURT OF CLAIMS NO. 183 58,DECIDED MARCH 7, 1962. THE DECISION IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CITED CASE INVOLVED SEVERAL SHIPMENTS OF FUEL OIL WHICH MOVED ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING FROM BAYTOWN, TEXAS, TO ADMONDS OR RICHMOND BEACH, WASHINGTON, DURING 1944. OF THESE SHIPMENTS 28 WERE CONSIGNED ORIGINALLY TO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AND LATER RECONSIGNED FROM THERE TO EITHER EDMONDS OR RICHMOND BEACH. THE REMAINDER OF THE SHIPMENTS WERE TRANSPORTED DIRECTLY FROM BAYTOWN TO THEIR ULTIMATE DESTINATION. ON AUDIT OF THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS IN OUR OFFICE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CHARGES SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A COMBINATION OF RATES OVER SEATTLE, USING AS A FIRST FACTOR A RATE OF 75 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS PROVIDED IN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, SECTION 22 QUOTATION NO. 193-A, TOGETHER WITH A RATE OF 4.5 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS NAMED IN NORTH PACIFIC COST FREIGHT BUREAU TARIFF NO. 14-0, ICC NO. 697.
CONCERNING THE 28 SHIPMENTS RECONSIGNED AT SEATTLE, THE COURT HELD THAT THE COMBINATION OF THE RATE IN SECTION 22 QUOTATION NO. 193-A, TOGETHER WITH A LOCAL TARIFF RATE FROM SEATTLE TO EDMONDS OR RICHMOND BEACH, WAS PROPERLY FOR APPLICATION, TREATING THE QUOTATION AS A "TARIFF" FOR THE PURPOSES OF RULE 14 OF THE RECONSIGNMENT TARIFF.
CONCERNING THE REMAINING 178 SHIPMENTS FROM BAYTOWN TO EDMONDS OR RICHMOND BEACH, THE COURT HELD THAT THE SECTION 22 RATE COULD NOT BE USED IN COMBINATION WITH A LOCAL TARIFF RATE TO DEFEAT THE APPLICABLE JOINT SINGLE FACTOR THROUGH TARIFF RATE FOR THE REASON THAT A COMBINATION OF RATES COULD BE APPLIED IN PLACE OF THE JOINT THROUGH RATE ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION PROVISION OF THE THROUGH TARIFF. THE ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION PROVISION, HOWEVER, PROVIDED ONLY FOR THE ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION OF A COMBINATION OF RATES IN TARIFFS "* * * LAWFULLY ON FILE WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.' SINCE THE SECTION 22 QUOTATION CONTAINING THE RATE USED AS ONE FACT OR IN THE COMBINATION RATE WAS NOT FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE RATE COULD NOT BE USED AS A FACTOR IN THE COMBINATION. IN THIS CONNECTION THE COURT STATED, HOWEVER,"* * * PERHAPS, SINCE THE GOVERNMENT MAY RECEIVE PREFERENCES, A QUOTATION RATE MAY ALSO BE COMBINED WITH A LOCAL TARIFF IF THE QUOTATION IS DESIGNED TO BE USED IN THAT MANNER.' THE COURT THUS RECOGNIZED THE POSSIBILITY THAT A SECTION 22 QUOTATION RATE MAY BE USED IN COMBINATION WITH A LOCAL TARIFF RATE IN PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES.
IN THE PRESENT CASE CHARGES WERE ORIGINALLY CLAIMED AND PAID ON THE BASIS OF A COMBINATION OF PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES OVER NOYES, MINNESOTA, THE ACTUAL ROUTE OF SERVICE. ON AUDIT IN OUR OFFICE, THE APPLICABLE CHARGES WERE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A COMBINATION OF RATES OVER NOYES USING THE FOURTH CLASS RATE OF $2.73 TO NOYES, AS SET FORTH IN CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS TARIFF W-822-C, ICC NO. W-599, PLUS THE RATE OF $1.57 PER 100 POUNDS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22 QUOTATION NO. 488. AS STATED IN OUR PRIOR DECISION OF AUGUST 25, 1958, B-135147, THERE WAS ON THE DATE THE SHIPMENTS MOVED NO PROVISION IN THE QUOTATION WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY PROHIBITED THE USE OF THE QUOTATION IN COMBINATION WITH THE TARIFF RATE, AND, AS STATED ABOVE, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WHICH WOULD ALTER OUR CONCLUSION. ACCORDINGLY, OUR PRIOR DECISION SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS REAFFIRMED.