Parties

Initiator: Bank I

Respondent: Bank A (two branches)

Background and transaction

The Respondent issued one letter of credit ("L/C") on 25 September 2008 for an amount of USD5,985,000.00 with an acceptable tolerance of 10% more or less. The L/C was subject to UCP 600 and available with any bank by negotiation. One of the documents required was full set of "clean on board" shipped bills of lading made out to order and blank endorsed, marked "freight payable as per charter party" and notify applicant. A charter party bill of lading was acceptable.

On 16 October 2008, the Initiator presented documents, as required under the L/C, for USD5,911,794.52 to the Respondent. A full set of "clean on board" charter party bills of lading was included in the presentation. The presented charter party bill of lading is signed in the following manner:

"Signature

FOR AND/OR ON BEHALF OF CAPT. P

MASTER OF VESSEL D

FOR COMPANY S

(manually signed)

AS AGENTS

It was manually signed. Other than the pre-printed words "FOR AND/OR ON BEHALF OF CAPT. P, MASTER OF VESSEL D", the name of "COMPANY S AS AGENTS" appears to be manually stamped.

The documents were rejected by the Respondent on 27 October, 2008, citing that the charter party bill of lading presented was discrepant. The Respondent indicated in its notice of refusal that "THE SIGNATURE ON THE B/L NOT CLEARLY INDICATE ITS SIGNING CAPACITY AND ON WHOSE BEHALF SIGNED. IT IS UNCOMPLY WITH UCP 600 ARTICLE 22A"

The Initiator rebutted by sending a SWIFT message on 28 October 2008 that the signature on the B/L fully complied with sub-article 22 (a) (i) of UCP 600.

As the Respondent insisted that the signature on the B/L failed to comply with sub-article 22 (a) of UCP 600, the acceptance advice and the undertaking to pay at maturity were not given by the Respondent.

Issues

The Initiator submitted that the charter party B/L had complied with the terms and conditions of the L/C, the applicable provisions of UCP 600 and international standard banking practice.

The Respondent rejected the documents, as it claimed that the charter party B/L had failed to comply with the applicable provisions of UCP 600 and international standard banking practice.

Does the signature on the B/L fail to comply with the applicable provisions of sub-article 22 (a) of UCP 600 and paragraph 118 of ISBP (ICC Publication No. 681)?

Documents submitted by the parties

Documents submitted by the Initiator

(i) SWIFT MT700 from the Respondent dated 25 September, 2008;

(ii) Notification of documentary credit from the Initiator addressed to the beneficiary dated 25 September, 2008;

(iii) Photocopy of the alleged charter party B/L (front and back);

(iv) A SWIFT MT799 message (notice of refusal) from the Respondent to the Initiator dated 27 October 2008 rejecting the presentation made by the Initiator due to the alleged discrepancy;

(v) A SWIFT MT799 message dated 28 October, 2008 from the Initiator to the Respondent rebutting the alleged discrepancy cited by the Respondent and demanding immediate acceptance.

Documents submitted by the Respondent

(i) SWIFT MT700 from the Respondent dated 25 September, 2008;

(ii) Photocopy of the alleged charter party B/L (front and back);

(iii) A SWIFT MT799 message (notice of refusal) from the Respondent to the Initiator dated 27 October 2008 rejecting the presentation made by the Initiator due to the alleged discrepancy;

(iv) A SWIFT MT799 from the Respondent to the Initiator dated 7 November, 2008 insisting that the alleged discrepancy was valid and offering help to persuade the applicant to further negotiate with its trade partner.

Analysis

Does the signature on the B/L fail to comply with the applicable provisions of sub-article 22 (a) of UCP 600 and paragraph 118 of ISBP (ICC Publication No. 681)?

The L/C allowed a charter party B/L to be presented. Sub-article 22 (a) (i) states: "A bill of lading, however named, containing an indication that it is subject to a charter party (charter party bill of lading), must appear to be signed by the master or a named agent for or on behalf of the master, or the owner or a named agent for or on behalf of the owner, or the charterer or a named agent for or on behalf of the charterer.

Any signature by the master, owner, charterer or agent must be identified as that of the master, owner, charterer or agent.

Any signature by an agent must indicate whether the agent has signed for or on behalf of the master, owner or charterer.

An agent signing for or on behalf of the owner or charterer must indicate the name of the owner or charterer."

Paragraph 118 of ISBP (ICC Publication No. 681) states:

"Original charter party bills of lading must be signed in the form described in UCP 600 sub-article 22(a)(i).

a. if the master (captain), charterer or owner signs the charter party bill of lading, the signature of the master (captain), charterer or owner must be identified as 'master' ('captain'), 'charterer' or 'owner'.

b. if an agent signs the charter party bill of lading on behalf of the master (captain), charterer or owner, the agent must be identified as agent of the master (captain), charterer or owner. In this event, the name of the master (captain) need not be stated, but the name of the charterer or owner must appear."

The charter party B/L was manually signed by a signatory for COMPANY S as agents for and/or on behalf of CAPT. P, MASTER OF VESSEL D. The signatory signed for the company as an employee. It is to be noted that the wording "for and/or on behalf of" a company is a common method of signing a document by the authorized signatory for the company. The signature for the company is accepted to be a signature of that company. Similar language is also used in DOCDEX Rules 8.3.4.

On the face of the charter party B/L, it is COMPANY S that signed the document as agents for and/or on behalf of the Master. It has complied with the requirement of sub-article 22 (a) (i) of UCP 600 that any signature by an agent must indicate whether the agent has signed for or on behalf of the master.

Conclusion

The Respondent claimed that a reasonable examiner cannot, on the face of the charter party B/L, determine the party signing the charter party B/L. We disagree.

As analyzed above, it is clear that COMPANY S was the party signing the charter party B/L as agents for and/or on behalf of the Master.

In conclusion, the charter party B/L presented has complied with the provision of sub-article 22 (a) (i) of UCP 600 and paragraph 118 of ISBP (ICC Publication No. 681).

The discrepancy cited by the Respondent is not valid.

The Decision is unanimous.