то The Advance Bulletin supplements the Commission's bound volumes of Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated. This issue is number 14 of volume 1. A number of Bulletins will constitute a volume; and the pages will be numbered consecutively within each volume rather than within individual Bulletins. facilitate the location of subject headings, the Table of Contents of each Bulletin may ultimately be removed to form a cumulative table for the volume. The Bulletin is published bimonthly. Members of the public, attorneys and practitioners, the I.C.C. staff may consult the consolidated file from which the Bulletin is compiled in Room 6364 of the I.C.C. Building. For cases which appear in the Bulletin only as reconsidered or appealed, prior citations and annotations may be obtained by consulting the consolidated file or by calling Mr. John F. McMorrow or Mr. Robert A. Emery, (202) 275-7143. Material in this volume of the Bulletin will appear in Volume 22 of the Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated. an asterisk (*), its history may be found in the Table of Cases at the back of the Bulletin. Volume 21 of the Interstate Commerce Acts Annotated is now available from the U.S. Government Printing Office (Stock No. 2600-00970) and may be ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, at $18.65 per copy, payable by check or money order to the Superintendent of Documents. The Advance Bulletin is prepared in the Annotations Unit under the direction of Mr. Jack R. Long, Chief, Reference Services Branch, Section of Case Control and Information, Office of Proceedings, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D.C. 20423. Comments and suggestions regarding improvement of the format of the Bulletin will be welcomed, and may be made in writing or by calling (202) 275-7221. Destructive competition: Assailed tariff requirement conditioning application of unit-train rate on tender of a minimum annual-volume of 850,000 tons of coal found to be a destructive competitive practice as the ultimate result of such requirement is to prevent competition of a substantial portion of the relevant market in violation of "initial handicap" doctrine formulated in New York Central, 194 F. Supp. 947, 951.--Great Lakes Ship Owners Assn. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 341 I.C.C. 272 (278-83)*. There are certain modes, such as foreclosing other modes subject to act from competing, which because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of redeeming virtue are presumed unreasonable and unlawful without an elaborate inquiry as to precise harm which they cause.--Id., pp. 284. PART I $1 (1). CARRIERS SUBJECT TO REGULATION Foreign Commerce 52. Transportation to or from a foreign country.-Commission concluded that record herein did not show any particular need for a general rule of filing of tariffs which establish joint rates on import-export traffic between carriers subject to our jurisdiction and water carriers of foreign commerce subject to jurisdiction of the Federal Maritime Commission. Appropriate rules were adopted in the prior report, 337 I.C.C. 625, and are affirmed. Commission reaffirms also that we have the authority to accept such tariffs for filing.--International Joint Rates and Through Routes, 341 I.C.C. 246 (247-48)*. §1(5). JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES Test of Reasonableness 23. In general.-Commission found proposed rates per car to be unjust and unreasonable because they were based on impractical load projections made by respondents. Shippers and receivers would be forced to revamp their entire producing, packaging, and marketing practices in order to accommodate carriers' desire to use one type of car with a standard size load. The costly burden thus imposed on shippers and receivers, and consequently the general public, would be too great to warrant our approval of these schedules.--Vegetables & Melons Bet. W. & Southwest, Midwest & S., 341 I.C.C. 597 (613-16). Proposed rates based on the size of car furnished to shipper not shown just and reasonable. Respondents failed to provide, in accordance with rule 66 (a) of our Tariff Circular No. 20 that if a car larger than the one ordered were furnished, the charge for the car ordered would apply. It is manifestly not equitable or proper to require a shipper to pay additional transportation charges for the use of a car of different dimensions or capacity |