Forgot your password?
Please enter your email & we will send your password to you:
My Account:
At a recent meeting, bankers and LC specialists, considered the following scenario involving an LC stipulating: “Port of Loading: Any port in USA”; “Port of Discharge: Busan Port, South Korea”; and “Forwarder B/L acceptable”. The presented bill of lading showed under its routing fields:
The question discussed: Would you pick up as a discrepancy 3 vessel names appearing on the B/L? While one banker was inclined to agree with others that a discrepancy exists due to the uncertainty of the cargo being on board a determined vessel, CDCS and Global Logistics Specialist Francisco Rodriguez offered the following analysis:
There is no discrepancy as the main routing box shows a refrigerated vessel (Peruvian Reefer) which serves (taking the cargo and quick freezing it) the mentioned trawler vessels right up to their sorting and cleaning the catch. Furthermore, the disclosure of the trawlers’ names is additional information which could be used as a source document required by the relevant government agency, which under this type of fishing, issues permits to the trawlers which are restricted to designated areas of fishing.
Another mitigating factor in considering the B/L compliant is that the credit allows for the presentation of a forwarder ’s B/L and thus signed; no carrier ’s name is required on the B/L. An issuer would be splitting hairs justifying a valid discrepancy.
As a separate note, this mode of fishing is presumed to eventually disappear as the sequels of damage to the sea floor out weighs the economic benefit. So much for the rex sole fish taco.