Case ID: us-ct-cl_150/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Jones, Chief Judge,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. 82-55.
    Decided June 8, 1960.
    Defendant’s motion for reconsideration overruled October 5, 1960]
    
      
      Mr. Raymond A. Negus for the plaintiff. Messrs. Lawrence Cake and John Cuandolo were on the brief.
    
      Mr. Lewis A. Dille, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General George Coehram, Doub, for the defendant.
   Jones, Chief Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff is suing for the recovery of certain amounts alleged to have been wrongfully withheld by the United States on bills of lading for material shipped to Pacific Coast ports at various times between 1942 and 1951.

In 1951, plaintiff sued in this court on its claim that the Government owed transportation charges for the shipment of aircraft landing mats during the period from 1942 to 1945. We suspended proceedings in that action on defendant’s motion pending the decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the War Materials Reparations Cases, 294 I.C.C. 5. In those cases, inter alia, the United States claimed that the rates charged during and after World War II by the railroads for the transportation of landing mats similar to those in the suit then pending in this court were unjust and unreasonable (Docket No. 29805, 294 I.C.C. 82). The Commission’s final report on that phase of the War Materials Reparations Oases contained the finding that the rates charged the Government for the transportation of the steel landing mats were applicable and had not been shown to have been unjust or unreasonable.

The Government then answered Western Pacific’s petition, which answer was later amended. In opposing plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the defendant, in substance, challenged the ICC determination and urged on us new evidence in an attempt to persuade us that the determination was erroneous in that it rejected the Government’s theory of the applicable rate. We held against the defendant and granted summary judgment for Western Pacific.

We pointed out that the ICC has wide experience in the area of transportation rates and is well qualified to handle such problems. We said that this court would not reach any result contrary to the Commission, unless the circumstances were very unusual. Since, in the case before us then, the question of proper classification had been raised by the Government and thoroughly considered by the Commission, we did not see fit to upset the determination.

As a result of our reliance on the expertise of the ICC in determining the reasonableness and applicability of rail freight rates in the War Materials Reparations Oases, most of the litigation relating to aircraft landing mats then pending before the court was settled. However, in the course of auditing the various bills of lading for the purpose of settling them, the General Accounting Office uncovered some which it felt presented issues not previously treated by this court or the ICC. The Government concluded that Western Pacific had been overpaid on certain of the shipments and withheld moneys from current payments. That action resulted in the filing of this suit.

The claims in this action can be divided into four separate groups, which will be referred to as Groups I, II, III, and IY. Each of the bills sued on can be placed in one or another of these groups. There is no dispute as to the bills comprising Group I. The parties have agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $35,543.99 for that part of the total claim. The respective amounts due under the plaintiff’s theory of the case on Groups II, III, and IV are $73,016.95, $2,172.64, and $7,329.46,; under the defendant’s theory of the case, they are $45,546.84, $1,930.47, and $1,690.62. It has been agreed that there is no money due defendant under a counterclaim originally asserted by it.

The question with respect to Group II is whether the general rate increase on airfield landing mats or the maximum rate increase on manufactured iron and steel articles should apply. This, in turn, depends on the meaning and effect of the quotation under which the materials were moved.

The question with respect to Group III is whether plaintiff is entitled to the 5 cents per 100-pound port service charge which was a part of the quotation for a certain period. And as to Group IV, the question is which of two tariffs is applicable to shipments which moved from Ogden, Utah, to Oakland, California, for export.

Facts relative to Groups II and III

Negotiations with respect to the transportation of aircraft landing mats by the nation’s railroads may be traced back to October 1941. At that time, a representative of the Office of the Quartermaster General of the War Department informed the Association of American Railroads (A.A.R.) that a shipment of airplane landing material had been moved from New Jersey to North Carolina, and the War Department suggested that the material might qualify for a rate lower than that at which it had been shipped. The A.A.R. notified the War Department that the railroads had decided to protect the manufactured iron and steel rate on the material and it suggested an appropriate commodity description which appeared in a then current tariff under which the shipment might be rated. The A.A.R. did not feel that it was necessary to offer the Government a quotation of the type authorized by 49 TJ.S.C. § 22 (1958) in order to protect the manufactured iron and steel rate.

Late in 1942, the War Department advised the A.A.R. that it anticipated making substantial shipments of aircraft landing mats and that it had some reservations as to whether they would be covered by existing tariff descriptions.

Classification ratings were later published on “iron and steel landing mats or runways, airfield, loose or in packages.” In January 1943, the A.A.R. informed the War Department that it had been authorized to offer the Government a Section 22 quotation on landing mats, and negotiations on such a quotation then began. Quotation No. 64-A, which resulted from the exchange of views, was acknowledged by the War Department and accepted by the Navy in March and April 1943, the charges to be retroactive to February 25,1943. Entitled “Iron and Steel Landing Mats or Runways for Airfields”, the quotation specified that the rates on other than transcontinental traffic would be those applicable to general manufactured iron and steel articles (Item 2(a), Quotation No. 64 — A). It set forth a table of rates from various points in the United States on transcontinental shipments for export (Item 2(b)). The quotation also provided for a port service charge of 5 cents per 100 pounds on Pacific Coast export shipments.

The schedule of transcontinental rates in Item 2(b) was the same as the rates on manufactured iron and steel articles for export previously published in Supplement No. 24, Transcontinental Freight Bureau (T.C.F.B.) Tariff No. 29-E. That tariff had been suspended and was later ordered canceled by the ICC. Because of these actions, that tariff never became effective. The rates on manufactured iron and steel articles then actually in effect pursuant to Item 1350 of T.C.F.B. Tariff No. 29 were less than the rates offered to the Government under Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A.

In May 1945, the War Department requested that Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A be revised to conform to the lower rates appearing in Item 1350, T.C.F.B. Tariff No. 29. It also requested the elimination of the 5-cent port service charge on the ground that the carriers were not actually performing any service to justify it.

Amendment No. 8 to Quotation No. 64-A was offered, making the lower rates available to the Government. However, that amendment had not been authorized, and on December 3, 1945, Section 22 Quotation No. 64r-B was issued effective retroactively to February 25, 1943. That quotation eliminated the 5-cent port service charge on all shipments originating after May 26,1945. The transcontinental export rates provided for in Item 2(b) of Quotation No. 64r-B were the same as the transcontinental export rates provided for in Item 2(b) of Quotation No. 64-A.

Amendment No. 2 to Item 2, Quotation No. 64-B made the rates in subparagraph (b) subject to Ex Parte Tariffs Nos. X--148 and X-162. Amendment No. 3 to Item 2 made sub-paragraph (b) subject to Ex Parte Tariff No. X-166. Tariffs of the X-162 and X-166 series provided for limited maximum increases on manufactured iron and steel articles and specified general rate increases for other commodity groups which included, among other items, “mats, landing airfield, iron or steel.”

The foregoing factual material pertaining to the claims in Groups II and III is set forth with greater specificity in findings 8 through 30 of the trial commissioner’s report.

Discussion of Groups II and III

As to the bills contained in Group II, the defendant’s position in relation to the increases of Tariffs X-162 and X-166 is that the maximum rate increase on iron and steel articles is applicable rather than the general increase for an article or commodity which is specifically indexed. It seeks to support this position by looking to the history of the transcontinental export rates of Item 2(b), Quotation No. 64r-B which, it claims, shows that manufactured iron and steel rates were intended. The Government says, in sum, that the 64-series quotations embody rates for iron and steel articles rather than for a specific commodity and that the landing mats should be viewed as manufactured iron and steel articles in calculating the rate increases under Amendments 2 and 3 to Quotation No. 6A-B.

The defendant makes three claims in support of its argument : in 1941 the carriers offered the manufactured iron and steel rate on the shipment of aircraft landing material which moved over rather short, domestic lines from New Jersey to North Carolina; the transcontinental export rates of the 64-series were based on the rates appearing in a tariff applicable to manufactured iron and steel articles; and historically the rates offered on iron and steel landing mats were the same as those applicable to manufactured iron and steel articles. On the validity of these claims depends the applicability of the maximum rate increase for which defendant contends.

We think, notwithstanding the historical background, that the Quotation No. 64-B rates applicable to westbound transcontinental traffic (Item 2(b)) reflect an offer of rates to the Government under Section 22, part I of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. § 22 (1958)), on a specific article of commerce in certain clearly defined circumstances. In addition, the quotation offered the existing manufactured iron and steel rates on shipments of the same article which were not in transcontinental traffic (Item 2(a)). Irrespective of what was the source of the rates offered for transcontinental shipment of the landing mats, they were clearly special rates for a specific service as distinguished from the standard domestic commodity rates appearing in published tariffs.

The defendant is incorrect in reasoning that because the railroads moved a small domestic, local shipment of landing mats at iron and steel rates in 1941 and in 1943 revealed that they had been authorized to offer the Government iron and steel rates without specifying if the rates applied to transcontinental traffic, the railroads thereafter bound themselves to treat landing mat shipments for all purposes as shipments of manufactured iron and steel. It must have been apparent to the defendant when it acknowledged and accepted the Quotation No. 64-A that the railroads were offering the manufactured iron and steel rate on landing mats only on those shipments not in east or westbound transcontinental, trafile. Item 2(a) spelled that out just as Item 2(b) tabulated the rates for those shipments which were in transcontinental traffic. If the manufactured iron and steel rates were to apply to all shipments, what necessity was there to specify the rates on transcontinental shipments ? And, it is to be remembered that all the shipments at issue in Groups II and III were transcontinental in nature.

It is true that the transcontinental rates in Item 2(b) were the same as manufactured iron and steel rates which the railroads had published and desired to put into effect. Whether this means that the transcontinental rates were based on manufactured iron and steel rates is another matter entirely. In any event, the rates spelled out in Item 2(b) were identified as the rates to be charged for “landing mats or runways, airfield, iron or steel, loose or in packages” shipped by the Government transcontinentally. Whatever basis the A.A.R. may have used in arriving at the rates, they were specifically denominated as something other than manufactured iron and steel rates. It should be noted also that while the rates on manufactured iron and steel had been published and were identical with Item 2 (b), the publication was rescinded by the ICC and therefore never became effective.

The plaintiff does not deny that at all times the manufactured iron and steel rates applied to domestic shipments. But, in contrast to the Government’s claim of a history of manufactured iron and steel rates on all types of shipments under the quotation, the record reveals a specific instance in which the plaintiff rejected a request to include landing mats in currently effective iron and steel tariffs. (See finding 26.)

Defendant fails in its claim that the transcontinental export rates of Quotation No. 64-B are manufactured iron and steel rates. It does not follow, then, that the rate increases of X-162 and X-166 should be limited to the maxi-mmn applicable to iron and steel articles and other commodities. But there is another reason why the general rate increase should apply.

Amendments 2 and 3 to Quotation No. 64-B increased the enumerated rates of Item 2 (b) by the charges in X-162 and X-166. These tariffs assigned specific general rate increases to certain commodity groups including those in Note 5 thereto. Specifically indexed to that Note and those groups were “mats, landing airfield, iron or steel.” Therefore, not only were the “iron or steel, airfield landing mats” of Quotation No. 6T-B not subject to manufactured iron and steel rates, and hence a maasirm/m increase, but they were definitely indexed as a commodity subject to the general rate increase pursuant to X-162 and X-166. Amendments 2 and 3 to the quotation create no ambiguities because the tariffs they invoke provide but one basis for the increases.

As to Group III, the plaintiff’s justification for claiming a port service charge of 5 cents per 100 pounds for movements between February 25, 1943, and May 26, 1945, is simply that the negotiated quotations in the 64-series provided for it during that period. Plaintiff points out that normal port services, such as switching and spotting, were performed in connection with the shipments (finding 30).

The defendant has cited authority for the proposition that line haul rates cover all of the services which must be performed in getting the shipment to the export carrier at dockside, thus implying that the 5-cent charge in addition to the quoted rates is unjustified. While this may be a correct statement of the law, the defendant overlooks the fact that the rates in the 64-series were considerably less than the line haul rate under the applicable tariffs would have been. Moreover, the ICC has found in the War Materials Reparations Gases, 294 I.C.C. 86 (1955), that the rates charged for the shipments in question were not unreasonable. There is no foundation for the position taken by the Government that the Commission did not consider the port service charge in determining the reasonableness of the rates.

The defendant has suggested that the railroads tacitly admitted that the service charge was unjustified from the beginning because they extended the Government a 3-cent port allowance which partially offset the 5-cent service charge and because the service charge was later wholly eliminated as of May 26, 1945. This reasoning, in so far as it attempts to affect service charges prior to May 26, 1945, is specious. We think it would be going too far to read that much into those acts.

The facts a/rid. discussion of Group IV

The dispute with, respect to Group IV arises because shipments from Ogden, Utah, to Oakland, California, were not covered by the rates in Item 2(b), Quotation No. 6-4-B. In other words, the quotation provided no transcontinental export rates on landing mats moving from Ogden to Oakland. We are faced with the question, therefore, as to what rate structure properly did apply. Plaintiff contends for the domestic iron and steel rate in Item No. 3780 of Supplement 262 to Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau (P.F.T.B.) No. 260-A. Defendant contends for the export iron and steel rate in Item No. 1903-C of Supplement 105 to West-bound Export Tariff No. 29-1. All of the shipments in this group moved from Ogden to Oakland on consignment to the Port Transportation Officer, San Francisco Port of Embarkation, in November 1950, and were certified as delivered for export.

Except as to transcontinental shipments covered by the rates appearing in Item 2(b), Quotation No. 64-B, Item 2(a) makes applicable to the Government on landing mat shipments “general * * * basis of rates * * * applicable on manufactured iron and steel articles, in effect by tariff or provided in any applicable Section 22 Quotation on the date of shipment from point of origin.” A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 265-A is an applicable section 22 Quotation within the meaning of Item 2(a). It makes available to the Government the rates then in effect under T.C.F.B. Tariffs of the 29-series, at the same time relieving the Government of the obligation of first complying with certain policing items of the 29-series.

Item 2(a) of Quotation No. 64r-B makes Quotation No. 265-A applicable to the otherwise rateless Ogden to Oakland shipments. The latter quotation, in turn, makes the 29-series applicable on Pacific Coast export shipments without requiring the Government to comply with certain rules. The adjusted rate per 100 pounds under these tariffs is 53 cents. The tariff which the plaintiff contends is applicable provides a rate per 100 pounds of 63 cents. Previously, the plaintiff had contended that in the absence of a transcontinental export rate from Ogden, class rates or another applicable Section 22 Quotation should be used. The position now taken by the plaintiff was formerly the alternative position of the Government.

The tariff which Western Pacific advocates applies to domestic shipments. Therefore, it seems to us that we are asked to choose between two tariffs, one for domestic freight, the other for export freight, neither of which violates the meaning of Quotation No. 64-B. The list of iron and steel articles in both tariffs was similar, and apparently neither listed nor rated airplane landing mats.

It is a familiar principle in construing freight tariffs that when two tariffs are equally appropriate the one which provides the shipper with the lower rate is to be applied. Moreover, there is language in each of the tariffs presented to us in connection with Group IV to the effect that on export traffic, a rate designated as an export rate will take precedence over other rates between the same two points.

The applicable tariff provisions are not ambiguous and need no reformation. They do, however, require interpretation. In choosing between the two potentially applicable tariffs for the Group IV bills, logic as well as the law compels us to select an export tariff rather than a domestic one to cover export shipments.

We find in accord with plaintiff’s theory of the case in regard to Groups II and III, and in accord with defendant’s theory of the case in regard to Group IV. The plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the amount of $112,484.20.

It is so ordered.

LittletoN, Judge (Bet.)/ Laramore, Judge, Madden, Judge; and Whitaker, Judge, concur.

FINDINGS OE FACT

The court, having considered the evidence, the report of Trial Commissioner Mastín G. White, and the briefs and argument of counsel, makes findings of fact as follows:

1. The plaintiff, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, is a common carrier by railroad in interstate commerce over its own lines and jointly with other carriers.

2. The claims asserted in the petition comprise four separate groups, which will be referred to in the findings as Groups I, II, III, and IV.

Funding relative to Group I

3. (a) The claims in Group I are asserted under the bills of lading involved in the plaintiff’s bills numbered FNTS-12A-A, F-7009-A, F-11036-E, F-11244-A, F-11599-A, F-12109-E, F-13290-A, F-13561-A, F-13562-A, and F-13643-A.

(b) The parties have agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to a total of $35,543.99 on the claims in Group I.

Findings relative to Groups II and III

4. With respect to the claims in Group II, which are asserted under the bills of lading involved in the plaintiff’s bills numbered F-50846-A, F-50849-A, F-50851-A, F-50852-A, F-50853-A, F-50885-A, F-50894-A, F-50895-A, F-50898-A, F-50899-A, F-50900-A, F-50902-A, F-50903-A, F-50905-A, F-50907-A, F-50908-A, F-51431-A, F-51862-A, F-52146-A, F-52394-A, F-51065-A, F-51866-A, F-52129-A, F-52136-A, F-52137-A, F-52148-A, F-52389-A, F-52400-C, F-52601-A, F-53712-A, F-53774-A, F-53778-A, F-53781-A, F-53784-A, F-46023-A, F-46042-A, F-46061-B, F-51275-B, F-51464-C, F-5152'0-B, and F-51628-B, the parties have agreed as follows:

(a) The issue to be decided is whether the general rate increases were applicable on shipments of airplane landing mats moving during 1950 and 1951 under the terms and provisions of Amendments 2 and 3 of A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-B, or whether the maximum rate increases pertaining to the manufactured iron and steel articles lists were applicable.

(b) If the general rate increases were applicable, the plaintiff is entitled to $73,076.95 on these claims in Group II, but if the maximum rate increases pertaining to manufactured iron and steel articles were applicable, the plaintiff is entitled to $45,546.84 on these claims.

(c) Bills of lading numbered WV-2668544, WV-2668542, WZ-T-76159, WW-924962, WW-924966, WZ-T-81449, WW-922594, WZ-T-81465, and WT-7083915 are representative of all the shipments involved in this issue.

5. The bills of lading selected as representative of the issue in Group II show on their face that the commodity— “mats landing airfield, steel, (mat, airplane landing, steel, pierced plank type)” — was shipped during the period June 1950-December 1951 from various points of origin in transcontinental territory, with Stockton, California, as the final destination. They also show that the consignee was the officer in charge, San Francisco Port of Embarkation, Stockton Subinstallation, and that the Port Transportation Officer accomplished the bills of lading and certified delivery of these shipments for export by ocean carrier.

6. With respect to the claims in Group III, which are asserted under the bills of lading involved in the plaintiff’s bills numbered F-28883-A, F-15573-A, and F-17236-A, the parties have agreed as follows:

(a) The issue to be decided is whether the plaintiff was entitled, on shipments of airplane landing mats moving from February 25, 1943 through May 26, 1945, to the charge of 5 cents per 100 pounds provided for in paragraph 2(c) of A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-B.

(b) If the plaintiff was entitled to such charge, it is now entitled to receive on these claims in Group III the sum of $2,172.64, but if it was not entitled to such charge, it is now entitled to receive the sum of $1,930.47.

(c) Bills of lading numbered WW-1905389, WQ-13979353, WE-720972, WE-720154, and WQ-11074497 are the only bills of lading involved in this issue.

7. The bills of lading representing all shipments involved in the issue of Group III show on their face that the commodity shipped consisted of “airplane landing mats,” or some other similar description. The shipments originated at Madison, Illinois, Kansas City, Missouri, or Youngstown, Ohio, and were either billed to Cheyenne, Wyoming, for storage or, while en route to San Francisco or Oakland, California, were diverted to Lathrop, California, for storage; and they were subsequently forwarded from Cheyenne or Lathrop to San Francisco or Oakland, California, and there exported.

8. On October 14, 1941, the War Department addressed to the Association of American Railroads a letter stating in part as follows:

A shipment of airplane landing material (18 cars) was made from Greenville Yards, Jersey City, New Jersey to Hoffman, North Carolina on September 27 and September 29. * * *
At the present time, by analogy, in Southern Classification this shipment takes a sixth class rate, carload minimum 36,000 pounds, under item 24855 CFG #14 — Area or Sidewalk Grating, loose or in packages. The average weight of the 18 cars was 131,161.4 pounds, and this office desires a lower rating than sixth class. It is suggested that airplane landing material be included in one of the Notes referred to in item 400, Curlett’s #128-A, ICC #A-640, which would give a commodity rate of 480 per hundred pounds as compared with the sixth class rate of 660 per hundred pounds.
It is requested that this commodity rate be established on short notice and that the rate be made retroactive under Section 22 to cover the movement from Greenville Yards to Hoffman during the latter part of September.

9. In a reply dated January 3,1942 to the letter referred to in finding 8, an official of the Association of American Railroads stated in part as follows:

I have handled this question with the interested lines and am advised that they have decided to protect the manufactured iron and steel rate on this material. For the movement in question this will provide a rate of 480 per hundred pounds as published in Agent Curtlett’s Tariff I.C.C. No. A-640, subject to the following description as provided in Supplement 39, Note 21:
“Blanks, stampings or unfinished shapes, N.O.I.B.N. in Southern Classification from plate or sheet iron or steel in the rough in one piece, not further finished, except that they may be painted, loaded or tarred with one coat only, to preserve from rust and which require further work to be done on them before becoming finished articles.”
The manufactured iron and steel rate can properly be protected on these shipments without the necessity of a Section 22 quotation and I understand that bills have already been rendered to the Government on the basis outlined above. I also understand that this material has since been reshipped, from Marston, N.C., to Charleston, S.C. on the basis of manufactured iron and steel rate of 230 per hundred pounds applicable in connection with the description above quoted.

10. (a) On November 10, 1942, a representative of the War Department informed a representative of the Association of American Railroads over the telephone that a substantial movement of airplane landing material was anticipated, and the former expressed some doubt as to whether the iron and steel rates could be applied on this material under the existing tariff descriptions.

(b) Following the conversation referred to in paragraph (a) of this finding, the representative of the Association of American Railroads addressed to the War Department a letter dated November 11, 1942, stating in part as follows:

I understand from our discussion yesterday there is to be . a considerable movement of airplane landing material and that the shipments may originate at points in several of the territories. If this is the case, probably a specific entry should be made in the several iron and steel lists and possibly in the Classification to cover this material — unless it comes within the descriptions now carried in the Classification and the iron and steel tariffs.
If you are of the opinion that the airplane landing ■material as it is now being shipped is not properly covered by the tariff, I suggest that you let us have an accurate description of this material which we can present to the Traffic Executive Chairmen’s Committee to determine whether they are willing to authorize such an entry in the several iron and steel tariffs and in the Classification or if they conclude not to so handle, then it will be necessary to present the subject to the several Rate Associations and to the three Classification Committees.

11. (a) On November 17, 1942, the War Department addressed to the Association of American Railroads a letter stating as follows:

The War Department is shipping a substantial volume of iron or steel landing mats or runways for aircraft which is predominently [sic] for export. This material embraces five separate types of construction, namely: pierced plank, Irving grid, heavy bar and rod, light bar and rod, and Sommerfeld. There are attached, for your information, photographs depicting the bar and rod type and Irving grid type, and a statement showing transportation characteristics of the several types. Photographs of the other three types of landing mats are not available for distribution at this time, but will be secured if required for your consideration of the matter.
None of these landing mats are specifically named in the manufactured iron and steel articles lists in the various tariffs. As the transportation characteristics of the considered articles are similar to those of many other articles embraced in the manufactured iron description, it is submitted that they are entitled to the same rates or ratings as those maintained on manufactured iron and steel articles.
It is requested that consideration be given to the establishment of manufactured iron rates on the above described landing mats and runways. This office has no objection to the establishment of this adjustment by a Section 22 quotation if the carriers desire to accomplish it in that manner, providing such rates are made subject to land grant deductions.

(b) The letter of November 17, 1942 was accompanied by the enclosures mentioned in it.

12. Thereafter, classification ratings of fifth class in the Official and Western classifications and 37.5 percent of first class in the Southern classification were published on “iron or steel landing mats or runways, airfield, loose or in packages,” with a carload minimum weight of 36,000 pounds.

13. In a letter dated January 23,1943, the Association of American Railroads informed the War Department in part as follows:

At a recent meeting of the Chief Traffic Officers, the Chairmen’s Committee was authorized to submit a Section 22 quotation, not subject to land grant, providing on landing mats or runways, in carloads, the existing general basis of rates whether by exception or commodity rates on manufactured iron and steel articles, subject to the carload minimum weight applicable to such articles. . This is not to apply in connection with truck competitive or water competitive rates on iron and steel articles, also it is to be provided that where there are specific commodity rates on landing mats or runways, such commodity rates will take precedence over the rates provided by the Section 22 quotation.

14. In a reply dated January 27, 1948 to the letter mentioned in finding 13, the War Department stated (among other things) that “This office is unable to agree to any restrictions in connection with the Section 22 Quotation.”

15. On February 25, 1943, an agent representing the railroads that were parties to Consolidated Freight Classification No. 15 submitted to the War Department, pursuant to Section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act, a quotation designated as A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64 on “Landing mats or runways, airfield, Iron or Steel, loose or in packages, minimum weight 36,000 pounds.” This quotation was to be effective on and after February 25, 1943. It included the restrictions mentioned in the letter dated January 23, 1943 and objected to by the War Department on January 27, 1943.

16. After a series of conferences and interchanges of correspondence between the War Department and members of the railroads’ Traffic Executives Chairmen’s Committee, A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64 was canceled on March 9, 1943 through the submission by the railroads to the War Department on that date of a new quotation designated as A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A. This new quotation was made effective retroactively to February 25, 1943. A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A, after being revised slightly on March 16, 1943, was acknowledged by the War Department on March 19, 1943 and accepted by the Navy Department on April 5,1943.

17. A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 6 LA. was entitled “Iron or Steel Landing Mats or Runways for Airfields,” and contained the following items (among others):

Item No. 1 — Traffic Covered
The traffic covered by and subject to this Quotation is:
Landing mats or runways, airfield, iron or steel, loose or in packages,
in carloads, property of the United States, hereinafter referred to as “the Government,” when originating at points in continental United States, consigned to a point in continental United States or to a port for transshipment and moving all-rail, in carloads, on Government bills of lading.
Item No. 2 — Bates to be Applied
(a) Subject to compliance with all the terms and conditions of this Quotation, each shipment of the kind referred to in Item No. 1, except eastbound and westbound trans-continental traffic, will be subject and entitled to the general (not truck or water competitive and so indicated as such in tariffs) basis of rates and carload minimum weight applicable on manufactured iron or steel articles, whether by exception or commodity, in effect on the date of each shipment, as provided in tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission or any State regulatory authority.
(b) On westbound trans-continentai traffic, subject to compliance with all the terms and conditions of this Quotation, each shipment of the kind referred to in Item No. 1 will be subject and entitled to the following:
RATES IN CENTS PER 100 LBS. APPLICABLE ON DOMESTIC TRAFFIC TO POINTS TO WHICH RATES ARE PUBLISHED IN ITEM 3730 OF WESTBOUND TARIFFS 1-W AND 4-T:
* * * * *
RATES APPLICABLE ON EXPORT TRAFFIC MOVING VIA PACIFIC COAST PORTS AS DESCRIBED IN EXPORT TARIFF 29-F FOR MOVEMENT TO-
Points west of the 170th Meridian, West Longitude and east of the 30th Meridian, East Longitude.
All points in Oceania on and east of the 170th Meridian of West Longitude.
From points taking Rate Basis (See Items . 8 to 140, inel. of Export Tariff 29-F) per loo lbs.
1_ (3) 110
2 _ 97
3_ (4) 89
3-A_ (4) 89
4,5 _-_ 80
6 _ 62
7 _ 110
9 _ 97
10 _ (4) 89
11 __ 110
Min. C.L. Wt. 80,000 lbs.
[The notes numbered (3) and (4) are unimportant from the standpoint of the present litigation.]
Foregoing export rates to apply regardless of clas3 of vessel used beyond the Pacific Coast Port, plussed by 5 cents per 100 lbs. service charge at Pacific Coast Ports.
Item No. 5 — Charges amd Allowances
Shipments made under this Quotation are subject to all charges and all allowances for or in respect of diversion, reconsignment, demurrage, switching, and to all other privileges, charges and rules which in any way increase or decrease the amount to be paid on any shipment or which increase or decrease the value of the service, without, in any case, any land-grant deduction.

18. The rates set out in paragraph (b) of Item No. 2 of A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A as being applicable on export traffic moving via Pacific Coast ports were in the same amounts as the proposed rates which the railroads had previously published in Supplement No. 24 to T.C.F.B. Tariff No. 29-E with respect to manufactured iron and steel articles shipped for export. Such proposed rates had been suspended by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and they were later ordered canceled by the Commission’s decision in I&S Docket 5136.

19. The following rates on manufactured iron and steel articles shipped for export were those actually in effect pursuant to Item 1350 of T.C.F.B. Tariff No. 29 at the time of the issuance of A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A, and at all pertinent times thereafter:

From points taking Rate (Basis (See Items 3 to 140, inel.) Rates In cents per 100 lbs.
1_ 74
2, 3_ 63
3-A_ 61
4, 5-44
6_ 34
7_ 79
9 79
10 79
11 79
Minimum carload weight 80,000 lbs.

20.By means of an amendment to a Section 22 quotation designated as A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 265-A, the railroads on March 16,1945, effective retroactively to October 1, 1943, provided that an “Allowance of 3(4 per 100 pounds will be made on traffic moving under rates authorized under A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A, amendments thereto or reissues thereof.”

21. (a) In a letter dated May 26,1945, the War Department requested that the rates specified in paragraph (b) of Item 2 of A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64 — A “be revised to reflect the same rates as currently published in Item 1350 of T.C.F.B. Tariff No. 29-G, Agent Kipp’s ICC No. 1500 * * * .” As a basis for this request, the War Department stated in part as follows:

* * * The basis of rates provided in the original quotation No. 64-A (Revised), of 9 March 1943, was the normal rates on iron or steel articles except that rates named to Pacific Coast ports, for export, represented the rates published in Item 1386-D, Supplement No. 24 to T.C.F.B. Tariff No. 29-E, Agent Kipp’s ICC 1471, which was suspended by the Interstate Commerce Commission and in the Commission’s decision in I&S Docket 5136 the rates were ordered canceled. Therefore, to properly provide on this commodity the current iron or steel article rate, the export rates should be amended to reflect those named in Item 1350 of T.C.F.B. Tariff No. 29-G, Agent Kipp’s ICC 1500.

(b) In the same letter, the War Department requested the elimination of the 5-cent service charge at Pacific Coast ports provided for in A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A. The justification stated by the War Department for this requested change was as follows:

On Page 3 of Amendment No. 3 to the quotation there is included the following clause, “Foregoing export rates to apply regardless of class of vessel used beyond the Pacific Coast port, plussed by 5 cents per 100 pounds service charge at Pacific Coast ports.” It is requested that this clause be eliminated from the quotation since the Army in practically all instances performs the services of unloading and handling at the ports and in such instances there is, of course, no services performed by the carriers justifying an additional charge. In instances where the carriers may perform port terminal services, Item No. 5 of the quotation will properly cover such services by application of tariff rules and charges.

22. (a) On August 1, 1945, Amendment No. 7 to A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64 — A eliminated the provision prescribing a services charge of 5 cents per 100 pounds at Pacific Coast ports (in addition to maMng other changes in the quotation). This amendment was effective as to shipments moving on and after May 26,1945.

(b) The allowance referred to in finding 20 was eliminated on August 1,1945, effective as to shipments moving on and after May 26,1945, by means of a subsequent amendment to A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 265-A.

23. (a) On August 31, 1945, Amendment No. 8 to A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-A was issued by the railroads to the War and Navy Departments. This amendment (among other things) revised the portion of paragraph (b) of Item No. 2 relating to rates applicable on export traffic moving via Pacific Coast ports so that such portion provided in part as follows:

RATES APPLICABLE ON EXPORT TRAFFIC MOVING VIA PACIFIC COAST PORTS AS DESCRIBED IN EXPORT TARIFF NO. 29-H FOR MOVEMENT TO—
Points west of the 170th Meridian, West Longitude and east of the 30th Meridian, East Longitude.
All points in Oceania on and east of the 170th Meridian of West Longitude.
Rates in „ . cents per From Rate Basis too pounds
I - (7) (25) 74
2, S- (25) 63
3-A-(3) (2) (25) 61
4, 5- (3) (25) 44
6- (17) (25) 34
7, 9, 10- (2) 79
II-(21) 79
[The notes numbered (2), (3), (7), (17), (21), and (25) are not important from the standpoint of the present litigation.]

(b) On October 15, 1945, the Chairman of the Transcontinental Freight Bureau, on behalf of the transcontinental lines, notified the Chairman of the Western Traffic Executives Committee that Amendment No. 8 had been issued without authorization, and recommended that the amendment be withdrawn. On October 25, 1945, the War and Navy Departments were notified that Amendment No. 8 had been issued improperly and was to be withdrawn, and that a revised Section 22 quotation would be issued.

24. On December 3,1945, A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-B was issued, effective retroactively to February 25,1943, and Quotation No. 64-A was canceled. Quotation No. 64-B continued in effect the specific rates on export shipments that had been promulgated in the original Quotation No. 64-A. However, the service charge of 5 cents per 100 pounds applicable to export shipments from Pacific Coast ports was eliminated on all shipments that moved from point of origin on and after May 26,1945.

25. A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 6A-B contained the following items (among others):

Item No. 1 — Traffic Covered
The traffic covered by and subject to this Quotation is:
Landing Mats or Runways, airfield, iron or steel, loose or in packages,
property of the United States, hereinafter referred to as “the Government”, when originating at_ points in continental United States, consigned to a point in continental United States or to a port in continental United States for transshipment, moving on Government bills of lading, all-rail, m carloads.
Item No. 2. — Bates to be Applied
(a) Subject to compliance with all the terms and conditions of this Quotation, each shipment of the kind described in Item No. 1, except eastbound and westbound trans-continental traffic, will be subject and entitled to the general (not truck or water competitive and so indicated as such in tariffs) basis of rates and carload minimum weight applicable on manufactured iron or steel articles, in effect by tariff or provided in any applicable Section 22 Quotation on the date of shipment from point of origin.
(b) On Westbound trans-continental traffic, subject to compliance with all the terms and conditions of this Quotation, each shipment of the kind described in Item No. 1 will be subject and entitled to the following:
*****
RATES APPLICABLE ON EXPORT TRAFFIC MOVING VIA PACIFIC COAST PORTS AS DESCRIBED IN EXPORT TARIFF NO. 29-H FOR MOVEMENT TO—
Points west of the 170th Meridian, West Longitude and east of the 30th Meridian, East Longitude.
All points in Oceania on and east of the 170th Meridian, West Longitude.
From points taking Rate Basis (See Items Bates in cents 3 to 140, inel. of Export Tariff No. 29-H) per 100 ns.
1 _ (3) HO
2_ 97
3 _ (4) 89
3-A_ (4) 89
4, 5 _ 80
6_ 62
7_ 110
9_ 97
10 _ (4) 89
11_ 110
Minimum carload weight 80,000 pounds.
[The notes numbered (3) and (4) are unimportant from the standpoint of this litigation.]
*****
(c) Foregoing export rates to apply regardless of class of vessel used beyond the Pacific Coast Port, plussed by 50 per 100 pounds service charge at Pacific Coast Ports on shipments moved from point of origin prior to May 26, 1945. As to shipments which moved from point of origin on and after May 26,1945, the port service charge of 50 per 100 pounds will be waived.

26. On December 14, 1946, the Navy Department was informed by the Association of American Railroads that the “Trans-Continental lines are unwilling to include this commodity [landing mats] in Tariffs 1 and 4-series (domestic) and in Tariff 29-series (export), but are agreeable to continuation of Quotation 64r-B on Trans-Continental traffic subject, of course, to such further increases as may be authorized under Ex Parte 162.” On January 7, 1947, the Navy Department stated in a letter to the Association of American Railroads that “It is noted that the Western, Trans-continental and South Western Lines are agreeable to extending the quotation subject to increase under Ex Parte 162. This action is appreciated.”

27. (a) On December 26, 1946, Amendment No. 2 to A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-B added the following provisions to Item No. 2, Bates to be Applied:

Effective July 1, 1946, but prior to January 1, 1947, the specific rates named in subparagraph (b), are hereby increased as provided in Tariff of Increased Rates and Charges No. X-148, Agent B. T. Jones’ I.C.C. No. 3659, amendments thereto or reissues thereof.
Effective on and after January 1, 1947, the specific rates named in subparagraph (b), are hereby increased as provided in Tariff of Increased Rates and Charges No. X-162, Agent B. T. Jones’ I.C.C. No. 4089, amendments thereto or reissues thereof.

(b) On October 8, 1947, Amendment No. 3 to A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-B revised the material that had been added to Item No. 2, Bates to be Applied, by Amendment No. 2 so that such material provided as follows:

Effective on and after October 13, 1947, the specific rates named in subparagraph (b) are hereby increased as provided in Tariff of Emergency Charges No. X-166, Agent B. T. Jones’ I.C.C. No. 4133, amendments thereto or reissues thereof.

(c) The Tariff of Increased Rates and Charges No. X-162 series and No. X-166 series, in effect during 1950 and 1951, allowed the carriers to increase all rates by certain specified percentages. These tariffs provided for maximum rate increases on manufactured iron and steel articles and specified general rate increases on all other articles and commodities. “Mats, landing airfield, iron or steel,” were specifically indexed as assigned to the commodity groups in Note 5 on which the specified general rate increases were applicable. These tariffs also provided that, in applying their provisions, the proper procedure was:

* * * first determine the rate or charge which would apply except for these tariffs and then increase the rate or charge so determined as provided in these tariffs.

28. In a letter dated September 5,1956, the Executive Committee — Western Traffic Association informed the General Accounting Office (among other things) that:

There were many port services rendered to and for the Government at the Pacific Coast ports during the period prior to May 26, 1945 in the handling of the cars, billing, demurrage, switching and many other similar services too numerous to mention here which were accentuated by the then prevailing Japanese conflict.

29. In reply to an inquiry from the General Accounting Office concerning the service charge of 5 cents per 100 pounds, the Executive Committee — Western Traffic Association wrote a letter on November 16, 1956, which stated in part as follows:

At the time this Section 22 Quotation was negotiated with the Military Forces, the costs at the Pacific Coast ports were increasing very rapidly and the port terminal railroads decided that where depressed export rates were published or quoted under Section 22 of the Interstate Commerce Act, they should be plussed by at least 5 cents per 100 pounds to offset these additional costs. It is true that the tariff publications in which that charge was made were suspended by the Interstate Commerce Commission in I. & S. Docket 5146 and subsequently the schedules were cancelled.

30. With respect to the services performed by the plaintiff for the defendant at Pacific Coast ports, the evidence in the record is limited to the situations existing at Oakland and San Francisco, California. Upon the arrival of cars at the plaintiff’s terminal in or near Oakland, the plaintiff furnished arrival notices to the Army, indicating the initial and number of each car. The Army would then match the arrival notices with its bills of lading and, when it could identify a particular shipment, the Army would call the shipment forward. If the shipment was destined to be loaded aboard a ship at the Oakland Army Terminal, the plaintiff turned the car over to the Southern Pacific Railroad, which (acting for the plaintiff as a “bridge” carrier) placed the car on the interchange track at the Army base. Army locomotives and crews did all switching and spotting of railroad cars within the Army base at Oakland. If a shipment was destined to be exported from San Francisco, the car, on being called forward by the Army, was transported by the plaintiff across San Francisco Bay on a barge and delivered to the State Belt Railroad in San Francisco. The State Belt Railroad (acting for the plaintiff) either switched and spotted the car at an appropriate pier along the Embarcadero or, if the goods were to be loaded aboard a ship at Fort Mason, the car was delivered to the Army at Fort Mason and an Army locomotive and crew handled it thereafter.

Fmdmgs relative to Group IV

31. With respect to the claims in Group IV, which are asserted under the bills of lading involved in the plaintiff’s bills numbered F-46599-A, F — 46658-A, and F-46692-A, the parties have agreed as follows:

(a) The issue to be decided is whether the export commodity rate on iron or steel articles named in Item No. 1903 of Supplement 105 to Transcontinental Tariff No. 29-1 was applicable to shipments of airplane landing mats which moved from Ogden, Utah, to Oakland, California, for export during November 1950 (if so, the plaintiff is entitled to receive $1,690.62 on these claims in Group IV), or whether the domestic commodity rate on iron or steel articles named in Item No. 3780 of Supplement 262 to P.F.T.B. 260-A was applicable to such shipments (in which case, the plaintiff is entitled to receive the sum of $7,329.46 on these claims).

(b) Bills of lading numbered WV-2761872 and WV-2761616 are representative of all the shipments involved in this issue.

32. The bills of lading selected as representative of the issue in Group IV show on their face that the commodity— “mats, airplane landing or runway steel, plate type” — were shipped from Ogden, Utah, to Oakland, California, during November 1950. They also show that the consignee was the Port Transportation Officer, San Francisco Port of Embarkation, Oakland Army Base, and that the Port Transportation Officer accomplished the bills of lading and certified delivery of these shipments for export.

33. The export rates on airplane landing mats specified in paragraph (b) of Item 2 of A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64-B, applying on westbound transcontinental traffic, did not apply from Ogden, Utah, to Oakland, California.

34. Item 1 of A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 265-A, in effect at the time of these shipments, provided in part as follows;

Rates currently in effect from time to time in Transcontinental Freight Bureau Export Tariff 29-series (not subject to land-grant deduction) will be applied by the carriers on traffic shipped by or for account of the various Departments, Bureaus and Agencies of the United States Government, and on which the United States Government assumes the freight charges, moving from origins and to United States Pacific Coast Ports named in said tariff and forwarded overseas from such ports to the destination territory named in Transcontinental Freight Bureau Tariff 29-series but without requiring compliance upon the part of the Government with items Nos. 235, 270, 275 and 290 of said tariff. * * *

35. West-Bound Export Tariff No. 29-1, issued by the Trans-Continental Freight Bureau (L. E. Kipp, Agent), was in effect at the -time of these shipments. Airplane landing mats were not listed or rated in this tariff.

36. Item 1903-C of Supplement 105 to West-Bound Export Tariff No. 29-1 published a rate of 34 cents per 100 pounds on shipments of iron or steel articles from Ogden, Utah, to Oakland, California. The 34-cent rate, increased by the Tariffs of Increased Rates and Charges, produced a rate of 53 cents per 100 pounds on shipments of iron or steel articles.

37. Item 3780-J of Supplement 262 to Pacific Freight Tariff Bureau Tariff No. 260-A published a rate of 63 cents per 100 pounds on domestic shipments of iron or steel articles from Ogden, Utah, to Oakland, California. The 63-cent rate was not subject to the Tariff of Increased Rates and Charges.

38. The list of iron or steel articles in Sections A and B of Item 370-B of Supplement 231 to P.C.F.B. Tariff 260-A, referred to in Item 37'80-J, was similar to the list of iron or steel articles in Section 1 of Item 1350, referred to in Item 1903-C of T.C.F.B. Tariff No. 29-1, and the majority of the articles in Item 370-B were covered by and listed in Item 1350.

Finding relative to counterclaim

39.The parties have agreed that the defendant is not entitled to receive anything on its counterclaim.

Oomfciratwe costs

40. Under the applicable class tariffs, tbe transportation charges for the shipments involved in this action would have been much greater than the charges for such shipments under the terms and conditions of the A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 64 series, as interpreted by the plaintiff.

CONCLUSION OK LAW

Upon the foregoing findings of fact, which are made a part of the judgment herein, the court concludes as a matter of law that plaintiff is entitled to recover, and it is therefore adjudged and ordered that plaintiff recover of and from the United States the sum of one hundred twelve thousand four hundred eighty-four dollars and twenty cents ($112,484.20). 
      
       137 Ct Cl. 394 (1957).
     
      
       The Association of American Railroads was empowered to publish tariffs and make quotations to the Government on behalf of its member railroads, one of which is the plaintiff.
     
      
       Quotations pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 22 are known as “Section 22” quotations. That section of the Interstate Commerce Act permits the carriers to offer lower rates to the Federal, state and local governments than they would be permitted to offer to the public in competition with other carriers.