B-141347, SEP. 14, 1960

B-141347, SEP. 14, 1960

TO CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 30, 1960, FILE N-40944-G A, REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 1960,B- 141347, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. N- 40944-A-G-R-1703 FOR $795.80 ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ON SHIPMENTS MOVING UNDER GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING FROM SWAINSBORO, GEORGIA, TO ARLES, GEORGIA, IN 1945.

OUR SETTLEMENT OF THE SHIPMENTS COVERED BY THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL IN QUESTION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIST OF THE MATERIAL SHIPPED WAS "WEBBING BURLAP OR JUTE" AS DESCRIBED ON TRANSPORTATION CORPS FORMS 790,"SUPPLEMENTAL WAR DEPARTMENT BILL OF LADING INFORMATION," DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1946, ISSUED BY HEADQUARTERS, SEVENTH ARMY, ATLANTA 3, GEORGIA, AND SIGNED BY W. E. SEDGEWICK, MAJOR, TRANSPORTATION CORPS, ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION OFFICER AND SETTLEMENT ON SUCH BASIS WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 1960, IN WHICH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO YOUR CLAIM AND THE BASIS FOR OUR ACTION WERE FULLY SET FORTH.

IN REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER YOU REITERATE YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CORRECTION OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMODITY SHIPPED BY THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TRANSPORTATION CORPS FORMS 790 IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE DESCRIPTION ORIGINALLY SHOWN ON THE BILLS OF LADING WAS ERRONEOUS, AND YOU SEEM TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT WE DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM "BY RELYING ON YOUR UNSUPPORTED TC FORMS 790.' YOU ALSO REFER TO OUR LETTER OF APRIL 24, 1959, B-138587, NOTIFYING YOU THAT WE WERE AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF YOUR BILL NO. N-32572-G-A FOR ADDITIONAL FREIGHT REVENUE AND YOU IMPLY THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THE SHIPMENTS COVERED BY THAT LETTER AND THOSE IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE THE SAME.

YOUR POSITION THAT WE ARE RELYING ON OUR TC FORMS 790 WAS CLEARLY MET IN THE DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 1960, BY THE STATEMENT THAT---

"THE CORRECTION OF THE COMMODITY DESCRIPTION AS SHOWN ON THE BILLS OF LADING BY THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TC FORMS 790 REPRESENT OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DULY EXECUTED BY A COMMISSIONED OFFICER OF THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND WERE SUBMITTED HERE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH OUR AUDIT OF THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED.'

IN OTHER WORDS OUR OFFICE IN NO WAY CAUSED THE PREPARATION OF THIS OFFICIAL DOCUMENT. THE FACT THAT AN INVESTIGATION BY THE SOUTHERN WEIGHING AND INSPECTION BUREAU FAILED, AS YOU CLAIM, TO DEVELOP ANY RECORDS ON FILE IN THE KANSAS CITY RECORD CENTER TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL IDENTITY OF THE COMMODITY SHIPPED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RECORDS FURNISHED US BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE INVOLVED FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH OUR AUDIT OF THESE SHIPMENTS.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ON THE BILLS OF LADING COVERING THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED IN B-138587 WAS ALSO CHANGED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT, NOW DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, BY ,CHANGE IN DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY" FORMS 0-354. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TO OUR AUDIT ACTION AND COLLECTION OF THE APPARENT OVERPAYMENT BY DEDUCTION, WE RECEIVED ADVICE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE INVOLVED (FIRST TRANSPORTATION ZONE, U.S. ARMY) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CHANGE IN DESCRIPTION APPEARING ON THE FORMS 354 WAS INCORRECT AND THAT THE ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING DESCRIPTION WAS PROPER. IN VIEW OF SUCH REPORT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE THAT THE CORRECTIONS OF THE BILLS OF LADING DESCRIPTIONS WERE IMPROPER IN THAT CASE, YOU WERE ADVISED ON APRIL 24, 1959, THAT "IN THE LIGHT OF SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION" WE WERE INSTRUCTING OUR TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO ISSUE A REVISED SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE ON YOUR CLAIM PER BILL NO. N-32572-G-A. NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO INDICATE THE CORRECTIONS OF THE BILLS OF LADING DESCRIPTION FOR THE SHIPMENTS COVERED BY YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL BILL NO. N-40944-A-G-R-1703 WERE IMPROPER.

THE CONTENTS OF YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 30, 1960, INCLUDING YOUR REFERENCE TO MILITARY TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED AND YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY FACTS OR EVIDENCE THAT WERE NOT FULLY CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 17, 1960. ACCORDINGLY, THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THAT DECISION IS REAFFIRMED.