BNUMBER:  B-257858
DATE:  March 7, 1995
TITLE:  Foremost Forwarders, Inc.---Claim for Refund of
Amount Collected by Setoff for Damage to Unaccompanied
Baggage

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Foremost Forwarders, Inc.---Claim for Refund of Amount 
          Collected by Setoff for Damage to Unaccompanied Baggage

File:     B-257858

Date:   March 7, 1995
                                                                                                                
DIGEST

Liability for damage to unaccompanied baggage is based on the gross 
weight of the large shipping containers in which it is packed unless 
the shipment is packed in cartons inside the shipping containers and 
accompanied by a complete household goods descriptive inventory.
                                                                                                                
DECISION

This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement which 
denied the claim of Foremost Forwarders, Inc., for refund of $98.50 
collected by setoff for damage to unaccompanied baggage.  We affirm 
the Claims Group's denial of the claim.

On April 18, 1990, Foremost picked up a Code J shipment of 
unaccompanied baggage belonging to Army Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) 
Michael C. Storm in Germany and delivered it to him at Fort Lewis, 
Washington, on May 31, 1990.  The baggage was packed in eight large 
containers.  Due to damage to the shipment, the Army collected $290 
from Foremost by setoff.  The Army calculated Foremost's liability at 
the rate of $.60 per pound times the weight of each large container in 
which damaged articles were packed.  Foremost argues that the Army 
should have calculated the damage based on the net weight of each 
inventory line item which was damaged.  In support of its argument 
Foremost cites our decision Dewitt Freight Forwarding, 63 Comp. Gen. 
254 (1984).

The Army settles loss and damage claims in accordance with Army 
Pamphlet (AP) 27-162, Dec. 15, 1989.  Under paragraph 3-11 of the 
pamphlet, a carrier's liability for damage to unaccompanied baggage is 
to be based on the gross weight of the external shipping container in 
which the items are packed unless the shipment is packed in cartons 
with a proper and complete household goods descriptive inventory.[1]  
If the entire inventory is properly prepared to note the size and 
contents of each internal carton packed in each large shipping 
container, the carrier's liability for damage may be based on the net 
weight of each line item of the inventory which sustained damage.[2]  
However, if only part of the inventory is a proper household goods 
descriptive inventory, liability for the entire shipment is to be 
based on the gross weight of the external shipping container.

In our decision 63 Comp. Gen. 254 the same methods of calculating 
liability based on either gross or net weight are set forth.  The 
decision states that the provision which allows the use of net weights 
from the Table of Weights for unaccompanied baggage is based on a 1983 
agreement between industry and military representatives.  The net 
weight method is available, however, only if the shipment has been 
packed in cartons with a proper and complete household goods 
descriptive inventory.

In the present situation the record contains a copy of the inventory 
of CWO Storm's unaccompanied baggage.  While the contents of most of 
the large containers are itemized with volume notations to make it 
appear that the items listed were packed in internal cartons which 
were then packed in the large shipping containers, the Army states 
that at least some of the items listed were packed directly in the 
large shipping containers.  The Army calls our attention to the fact 
that some of the items packed by the carrier are listed at small 
volumes such as 1 or 2 cubic feet despite the fact that carriers do 
not use packing boxes in those sizes.  Furthermore, the inventory 
lists shipping container number 6 as 16 cubic feet of clothing packed 
directly in the shipping container.  Therefore, the Army's computation 
of Foremost's liability based on the gross weights of the large 
shipping containers was proper.  See AP 27-162, para. 3-11; and 63 
Comp. Gen. 254.

Accordingly, Foremost's claim is denied, and the Claims Group's 
settlement is affirmed.

\s\ Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. For a discussion of a proper descriptive household goods inventory, 
see Department of Defense Instruction 4500.34-R, app. A, para. 54.

2. In that case the weights utilized are those found in the Joint 
Military-Industry Table of Weights.  See AP 27-162, app. G.