Alamo Motor Lines

• Decision Date: 13 March 1957
• Docket Number: B-129520
• Parties: ALAMO MOTOR LINES.
• Court: Comptroller General of the United States

ALAMO MOTOR LINES.

No. B-129520

Comptroller General of the United States

March 13, 1957

Reference is made to your letter of October 11, 1956, requesting review of the settlement action of August 20, 1956, which disallowed your claim, per bill no. 8725-a, for $25 additional freight charges alleged to be due for the transportation of a shipment of "133 w/b detonating fuses, " weighing 6, 650 pounds, from defense, Texas, to fort bliss, Texas, on April 13, 1956, under government bill of ladingwy 6, 119 304.

It is your contention that the originating carrier, strickland transportation company, Inc., is an interstate carrier insofar as traffic to or from defense, Texas, is concerned and, not possessing any intrastate permit or certificate authorizing it to serve that point, the proper rates for assessing charges on this shipment are the interstate rates provided in southwestern motor freight bureau tariff no 25-e, mf-i.C.C. No. 246, r.C.T. No. 26, item 1-a, published in supplement no. 10.

The record indicates that this shipment moved from defense Texas, to fort bliss, Texas, but does not show that it actually moved--- either from choice or necessity--- via a route partially outside Texas in order to reach the final destination, which would bring the shipment within the definition of "interstate commerce, " as defined in section 203 of the interstate commerce act, 49 U.S.C. 303. Item 1-a of tariff no. 25-e indicates that the increased rates and charges are, applicable only on interstate traffic.' so far as disclosed by the record, the shipment in question moved via an intrastate route and, therefore, was intrastate commerce by virtue of its relation to the state of Texas, which precludes the application of the interstate rates. See cobb v. Department of public works of state of Washington, 60 F.2d 631, 638; wooleyhan transport Co.V. Geo Rutledge co., 162 F.2d 1016.

In your letter of October 11, 1956, you urge that because the originating carrier lacked an intrastate permit or certificate authorizing it to serve defense, Texas, "the proper basis of rates to assess on this shipment would be the interstate rates.' on the contrary, the charges seem proper for determination in accordance with the type of commerce actually involved--- in this case a shipment transported in intrastate commerce--- rather than on the basis of the type of commerce for which the carrier possessed operating authority, regardless of...