B-135660, JUL. 31, 1958

B-135660, JUL. 31, 1958

TO COAST COUNTIES EXPRESS:

WE HAVE EXAMINED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 17, 1958, WHICH, IN EFFECT, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF JUNE 11, 1958, SUSTAINING OUR SETTLEMENT ACTION RELATIVE TO A SHIPMENT OF FOODSTUFFS WHICH MOVED DURING JANUARY 1954, FROM LYOTH TO SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING WY-1773428 AND WY 1773431.

THE PORTIONS OF YOUR LETTER RELATING TO A PURPORTED DISCREPANCY IN THE PICK-UP AND DELIVERY DATES, IMPROPER NOTIFICATION AS TO THE QUANTITY OF SHIPMENT INVOLVED, AND YOUR UNILATERAL DECLARATION THAT TRUCKING EQUIPMENT WAS NOT ORDERED SIMULTANEOUSLY BY THE CONSIGNOR, CONSTITUTE ASSERTIONS WHICH WE BELIEVE WERE MET ADEQUATELY IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 11, 1958 (B- 135660). SINCE YOU NOW FURNISH NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THESE ASSERTIONS AND SINCE OUR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD DISCLOSES NOTHING TO SUGGEST ANY MODIFICATION OF OUR EARLIER SETTLEMENT ACTION, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN ANY DETAILED RESTATEMENT OF THE FACTS ADDUCED FROM THE RECORD, AND COMMUNICATED TO YOU PREVIOUSLY. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO US BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY INDICATES THAT THE ENTIRE SHIPMENT WAS TENDERED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU ON THE SAME DAY. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY THE NECESSARY RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS IS TO ACCEPT THE FACTUAL REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS AS CORRECT. MOREOVER, THE BILLS OF LADING ESTABLISH THAT BOTH SHIPMENTS WERE SIGNED FOR DURING THE SAME DAY, JANUARY 18, 1958, BY AGENTS OF COAST COUNTIES EXPRESS, AND THE CONSIGNEE'S CERTIFICATES OF DELIVERY FOR BOTH BILLS WERE ACCOMPLISHED ON JANUARY 19, 1958. THE RECORD PRESENTS NO INCONSISTENCY WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE IDENTICAL DATES OF RECEIPT, ENTERED ON BOTH BILLS OF LADING BY YOUR AGENTS, FAIL TO CORRESPOND WITH THE DATE OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE SHIPMENT. AGAIN, UNDER THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS OF OUR OFFICE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY WE PRESUME THAT THE DATES COINCIDE.

IT IS ALSO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE SHIPMENTS OUT OF LYOTH WERE ESPECIALLY CONFUSING,"DUE IN LARGE MEASURE TO THE TYPE OF MERCHANDISE SHIPPED, THE QUANTITIES INVOLVED, AND THE APPARENT LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CROSS REFERENCED BILLS.' WE FIND NOTHING TO SUPPORT THESE INFERENCES. FOODSTUFFS WERE SHIPPED, AND EACH BILL OF LADING APPEARS UNUSUALLY PRECISE IN DENOMINATING EACH TYPE OF FOOD COMMODITY INVOLVED IN THE SHIPMENT WITH ALL ATTENDANT WEIGHT AND QUANTITY DESCRIPTIONS. THE IMPORT OF YOUR STATEMENT, THEREFORE, IS NOT CLEAR. TO A PURPORTED LACK OF UNDERSTANDING RELATIVE TO THE PROPER REQUIREMENTS FOR CROSS-REFERENCING OF THE BILLS OF LADING, THE RECORD SUGGESTS, INSOFAR AS THE SHIPPER IS CONCERNED, A CONTRARY PRESUMPTION BASED UPON THE REASONING IN OUR EARLIER CORRESPONDENCE. THE BILLS OF LADING COVERING THE SHIPMENT WERE PROPERLY CROSS-REFERENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. THEY APPEAR, MOREOVER, TO ESTABLISH UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE FREIGHT WAS SHIPPED FROM ONE POINT, IN ONE DAY, BY ONE SHIPPER, FOR DELIVERY TO ONE CONSIGNEE, AT ONE DESTINATION AND IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 3 (A) OF THE RULE 13 OF THE NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF MOVEMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE CROSS-REFERENCED BILLS DEPARTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT ONE BILL OF LADING BE ISSUED (SEE STONE-FISHER CO. V. DIRECTOR GENERAL, 77 I.C.C. 369 (1923); WILLINGHAM V. SELIGMAN, 179 F.2D 257 (1950) (, AND WE FIND NO REQUIREMENT THAT ANY SO-CALLED "MASTER BILL OF LADING" BE ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH VOLUME SHIPMENTS.

SINCE NO COMPETENT MATTER HAS BEEN PRESENTED WITH YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH RAISES A QUESTION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF OUR SETTLEMENT ACTION, THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR DECISION OF JUNE 11, 1958, IS REAFFIRMED.