Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., B-152700

• Decision Date: 02 January 1964
• Docket Number: B-152700
• Parties: THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY:
• Court: Comptroller General of the United States

THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY:

No. B-152700

Comptroller General of the United States

January 2, 1964

By your letter of October 10, 1963, your file no. 238254-21, you request review of your claim for $11, 050.24 disallowed by our settlement certificate of January 9, 1963, tk-746434. The amount claimed was administratively deducted by the department of the air force from amounts otherwise due the carrier for the value, in the amount of $10, 857.60, of three items lost while being transported from norfolk, Virginia, to pauline, Kansas, under government bill of lading no Wy-7842979 dated February 26, 1958, PLUS unearned freight charges in the amount of $192.64.

The record shows that the shipment in question was discharged from the ss. Mankato victory at the hampton roads army terminal, norfolk, Virginia, on February 14, 1958. The bill of lading shows that this shipment, consisting of seven crates described as "freight trailers noibn completely kd, " weighing 10, 310 pounds PLUS 500 pounds dunnage was tendered to and accepted by the Pennsylvania railroad company on February 26, 1958. The shipment arrived at destination on March 7, 1958, in gondola car number vgn-30486; consignee's certificate of delivery was accomplished to the atchison, topeka and santa fe railway for 6, 100 pounds and a shortage of, three each freight trailers" weighing 4, 710 pounds, was annotated on the reverse of the bill of lading. In your damage report of April 3, 1958, you acknowledged the shortage of the three trailers weighing 4, 710 pounds. Thereafter you were furnished a copy of an over and/or short freight data report issued by the consignee dated April 10, 1958. When you requested verification that seven items had in fact been shipped, since seven freight trailers as billed could not have been loaded on the railway equipment, an extensive investigation was conducted as a result of which it was determined that seven crates were actually shipped and that there was an actual shortage of three crates. However, the billing was found to be in error in that only four of the items should have been identified as trailers. Subsequently, on the basis of information contained in shipping documents received from the overseas origin shipper you were advised by letter of November 25, 1958, from the Administrative Office that the issuing officer had authorized correction of the audit description on the bill of lading as follows:

"As billed:

7 CRT freight trailers noibn completely KD 10, 310 lbs.

As corrected:

4 CRT freight trailers noibn completely kd

(s/n 4920-099-8101, ufc no. 4 92900) 5, 600 lbs.

2 CRT outfits pumping consisting of power pump

And engine mounted on hand or trailer truck

(s/n 4920-433-5475, ufc no. 4 73920) 2, 610 lbs.

1 CRT tanks steel noibn plate or sheet thinner

Than 16 gauge su not nested (8/n 5619-153-

48404, ufc no. 4 89100) 2, 100 lbs.'

This last item was further corrected to read

"Fuel cells, rubber, noibn.'

In your request for review you contend that the shortage is not your responsibility, referring in support of your contention to letters of March 29 and April 10, 1963, from dudley H Broyles, major, transportation corps, transportation officer headquarters, hampton roads army terminal, norfolk, Virginia, ostensibly verifying that loss was not carrier's responsibility. You also refer to your letters of May 21 and August 1, 1962, for a further statement of reasons why the loss is not a carrier responsibility.

In the letter of April 10, 1963, referring to the correction of commodity description on the government bill of lading, major broyles stated:

"While the consignee does not state specifically that the correction is to cover the items actually received, i can think of no other reason for requesting the correction. Unless the consignee actually received the two pumping outfits and one crate tank, i do not know how he could have chosen those particular descriptions.'

Also, in your letters of May 21 and August 1, 1962, you refer to a statement in the letter of April 20, 1962, from major broyles stating:

"The fact that topeka air force depot discovered the error in classification

...