Skip to Highlights
Highlights

TO CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST. YOUR LETTER SUGGESTS THAT THE POSITION TAKEN IN THE DECISION REFERRED TO IS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT EVIDENCED BY A NOTICE OF OVERPAYMENT. WHERE WE CONCLUDED THAT THE CARLOAD RATING AND RATE ON EACH ARTICLE RATHER THAN THE COMPLETE UNIT RATING WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE ALLOWABLE FREIGHT CHARGES. ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RATE SITUATION IS PRESENT IN THE CASE OF BILL NO. 28963. WAS A MIXED CARLOAD SHIPMENT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION. WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE TARIFF PROVISIONS AND IT WAS SUSTAINED AS PROPER. OUR AUDIT ACTION ON THIS SHIPMENT WAS BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF A COMMODITY RATE OF $2.64 PER 100 POUNDS AS PUBLISHED IN ITEM NO. 5745 OF TRANS-CONTINENTAL FREIGHT BUREAU EAST-BOUND TARIFF NO. 3- R.

View Decision

B-133415, MAR. 29, 1961

TO CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR REQUEST, PER FILE N-9572-G-A, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 27, 1957, B-133415, WHICH SUSTAINED THE SETTLEMENT DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, PER BILL N 9572-B-G-R- 519, FOR $68.68, ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A MIXED CARLOAD SHIPMENT CONTAINING A DRIVING TRACTOR AND TRAILER, WEIGHING 8,330 POUNDS, MOVING UNDER BILL OF LADING WQ-6236519 FROM BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, TO FORT BENNING JUNCTION, GEORGIA, DURING JUNE 1942.

YOUR LETTER SUGGESTS THAT THE POSITION TAKEN IN THE DECISION REFERRED TO IS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT EVIDENCED BY A NOTICE OF OVERPAYMENT, GAO FORM 1003, DATED JULY 1, 1960, AND ISSUED TO YOU WITH REFERENCE TO A SHIPMENT OF SEVERAL CARLOADS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS WHICH MOVED BETWEEN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, AND MACON, GEORGIA, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. WT-4542582, DATED APRIL 29, 1944, COVERED BY YOUR BILL NO. 28963, IN JUNE 1944. SPECIFICALLY, YOU REFER TO THAT PART OF THE SHIPMENT CONSISTING OF A TRUCK AND TRAILER LOADED IN CAR NO. EJE-6066, AND YOU CONTEND THAT THE BASIS USED TO ASSERT AN OVERCHARGE ON THIS ITEM, BY COMPUTING FREIGHT CHARGES AT ONE RATE ON THE COMPLETE UNIT, REQUIRES THAT WE SHOULD RECONSIDER OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 27, 1957, WHERE WE CONCLUDED THAT THE CARLOAD RATING AND RATE ON EACH ARTICLE RATHER THAN THE COMPLETE UNIT RATING WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE ALLOWABLE FREIGHT CHARGES.

WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE AUDIT ACTION TAKEN ON YOUR BILL NO. 28963 REQUIRES A DIFFERENT POSITION FROM THAT MAINTAINED IN OUR DECISION. ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RATE SITUATION IS PRESENT IN THE CASE OF BILL NO. 28963.

THE SHIPMENT CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 27, 1957, WAS A MIXED CARLOAD SHIPMENT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION, PUBLISHED IN ITEM 50000 OF TRUNK LINE TARIFF BUREAU TARIFF NO. 141, AGENT W. S. CURLETT'S I.C.C.NO. A 709. THE EXCEPTION PERMITTED THE APPLICATION OF CHARGES BASED ON THE STRAIGHT CARLOAD CLASS OR COMMODITY RATE APPLICABLE TO EACH ARTICLE (TRACTOR AND THE TRAILER), AND PROVIDED THAT THE CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT WOULD BE THE HIGHEST PROVIDED FOR ANY ARTICLE ON THE MIXED CARLOAD, AND THAT ANY DEFICIT IN THE MINIMUM WEIGHT WOULD BE CHARGED FOR AT THE HIGHEST CARLOAD RATING OR RATE APPLICABLE TO ANY ARTICLE IN THE MIXED CARLOAD. SECTION 4 OF THE EXCEPTION ITEM STATES THAT IF A LOWER CHARGE WOULD RESULT UNDER THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 1, 2 OR 3 OF THE RULE THAN UNDER THE PROVISIONS FOR A SPECIFIC CARLOAD MIXTURE, SUCH LOWER CHARGE WOULD APPLY. SINCE LOWER CHARGES RESULTED BY APPLYING THE CARLOAD RATINGS APPLICABLE TO EACH ARTICLE IN THE SHIPMENT, PLUS THE DEFICIT WEIGHT OF 330 POUNDS ADDED TO MEET THE CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXCEPTION ITEM, WE CONCLUDED THAT OUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 19, 1957, WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROPRIATE TARIFF PROVISIONS AND IT WAS SUSTAINED AS PROPER.

AS STATED ABOVE, THE SHIPMENT UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING NO. WT 4542582, DATED APRIL 29, 1944, MOVED BETWEEN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, AND MACON, GEORGIA. OUR AUDIT ACTION ON THIS SHIPMENT WAS BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF A COMMODITY RATE OF $2.64 PER 100 POUNDS AS PUBLISHED IN ITEM NO. 5745 OF TRANS-CONTINENTAL FREIGHT BUREAU EAST-BOUND TARIFF NO. 3- R, I.C.C.NO. 1506, WHICH ITEM NAMES ONE RATE COVERING BOTH TRUCK AND TRAILER.

THEREFORE, WHILE BOTH SHIPMENTS IN QUESTION CONSISTED OF MIXED CARLOADS OF TRUCK TRACTORS AND TRAILERS, THE SHIPMENTS MOVED BETWEEN DIFFERENT POINTS UNDER DIFFERENT TARIFFS. THE RATES COMPUTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DIFFERENT TARIFFS WERE BASED ON PROVISIONS WHICH WERE DISSIMILAR. ONE CASE A PUBLISHED EXCEPTION TO THE CLASSIFICATION WAS APPLICABLE AND IN THE OTHER A COMMODITY RATE GOVERNED. THE ACTION DEEMED APPROPRIATE ON THE 1944 SHIPMENT IN NO WAY CONTROLLED THE ACTION TAKEN ON THE PRESENT SHIPMENT.

GAO Contacts