[Claim for Amount Set Off From Moneys Due]

An air carrier appealed a Claims Group settlement which disallowed its claim for an amount set off from moneys it was otherwise due after being found liable by the Army for loss and damage claims under seven different shipments. In its statement to the Claims Group, the claimant argued that all of the claims were barred because they were filed beyond the required time period contained in one of its tariff rules. Relying on a prior GAO decision, the Claims Group held that this rule was inapplicable to a shipment made under a Government bill of lading (GBL), because there was an ambiguity between it and another tariff rule which provides that claims for loss and damage on shipments governed by the tariffs in question and which are transported under GBL's are not subject to the notice requirement. Such an ambiguity is construed against the carrier and in favor of the shipper. The claimant based its appeal on the contention that its tariff did not contain the conflicting rule. However, GAO found the identical rule in the claimant's tariff. GAO held that the rationale of its prior decision prevailed and that the claims in question were not subject to the filing limitation in the claimant's tariff.