B-125984, MAY 25, 1956

B-125984, MAY 25, 1956

TO UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR FILE GO 77730, REQUESTING A REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF OUR OFFICE IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, PER SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. TM-77730-B, FOR $119.99 ADDITIONAL CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT DESCRIBED ON BILL OF LADING NO. MC 973619 AS "LOWER TRUNKS AND DOOR ASSEMBLIES," WEIGHING 28,480 POUNDS, WHICH WERE TRANSPORTED FROM POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK, TO PORTLAND, OREGON, DURING JULY AND AUGUST 1944.

THE CHARGES OF $366.52 ALLOWED FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION WERE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A COMMODITY RATE OF $1.93 PER 100 POUNDS AT A CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 30,000 POUNDS, LESS LAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS, APPLICABLE ON "DOORS, IRON OR STEEL," AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 3550 OF TRANS-CONTINENTAL FREIGHT BUREAU TARIFF NO. 4-U, AGENT KIPP'S I.C.C. NO. 1499. YOU CONTEND THAT THE ARTICLES SHIPPED SHOULD BE CHARGED FOR ON THE BASIS OF A COMMODITY RATE, LESS LAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS, APPLYING ON "HOUSES OR BUILDINGS, PORTABLE OR FABRICATED," AND YOU REQUEST $65.60 ADDITIONAL TO THE AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED.

THE CONTROVERSY HERE SEEMS TO BE A MATTER OF THE PROPER DESCRIPTION OF THE ARTICLES SHIPPED, AND IN THIS CONNECTION YOU HAVE SUBMITTED A COPY OF A CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE EASTERN WEIGHING AND INSPECTION BUREAU IN 1952, AND TWO REPORTS FROM THAT BUREAU, DATED DECEMBER 19, 1950, AND JUNE 2, 1955, WHICH STATE THAT INSPECTORS FROM THE BUREAU VISITED THE PLANT OF THE SHIPPER-CONTRACTOR IN DECEMBER 1950, MORE THAN SIX YEARS AFTER THE MOVEMENT OF THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION, AND AGAIN ON APRIL 5, 1955, MORE THAN TEN YEARS AFTER THE MOVEMENT, AND INSPECTED WHAT ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SIMILAR ARTICLES BEING MANUFACTURED ON THOSE DATES. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT A SKETCH WHICH WAS MADE OF THE ARTICLE BEING MANUFACTURED IN APRIL 1955 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE WESTERN CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, WHICH COMMITTEE REPORTED THAT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATTER, THE THREE CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEES CONCLUDED THAT THE ARTICLE WAS PROPERLY SUBJECT TO THE RATINGS FOR HOUSES OR BUILDINGS, PORTABLE OR FABRICATED, NOIBN, IRON OR STEEL, AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 8419 OF THE CLASSIFICATION.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT RECORD THAT THE ARTICLES BEING MANUFACTURED IN 1950 AND IN 1955 WERE IDENTICAL WITH THE ARTICLES MANUFACTURED IN 1944 AND SHIPPED TO THE MARITIME ADMINISTRATION, NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ENTIRE ARTICLE WAS TRANSPORTED AS A UNIT IN THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION. ON THE CONTRARY, REPORTS FROM THE MARITIME ADMINISTRATION STATE THAT THE ARTICLE PURCHASED FROM THE SHIPPER INVOLVED THREE SEPARATE ITEMS, ONLY ONE OF WHICH, "LOWER TRUNKS WITH DOORS," AS SHOWN ON THE BILL OF LADING, WAS TRANSPORTED IN THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION, AND THAT THE SHIPPER MADE SEPARATE SHIPMENTS OF THE OTHER TWO ITEMS.

IN CLAIMS INVOLVING DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT BETWEEN A CLAIMANT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS THE RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. SEE 16 COMP. GEN. 325; 14 ID. 927, 929.

ACCORDINGLY, YOUR REQUEST FOR PARTIAL REFUND OF THE AMOUNTS PREVIOUSLY DEDUCTED BY THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE FROM MONEY OTHERWISE DUE YOU ON ..END :