Pls refer to ICC opinions R674. Although your B/L not show "as agent for carrier" (in the same way as BL in the mentioned ICC opnions) , I think both cases are really considered the same, and therefore, it should not be treated as a discrepancy.

Regards/Tuyet
[edited 2/14/2011 10:11:00 AM]

Dear PTN I am now totally sure that the given B/L is discrepant. Pls refer to Publication "Frequently Asked Questions under UCP600" by Gary Collyer, volume VII, question 20.7 Quote: "the UCP, in art 20, imposes three basic requirements: 1-naming of the carrier, 2-siging by the carrier...

We received the advice of following discrepacy from Issuing bank: "insurance policy not indicating the number of originals issued''. The presentation included two (02) originals of insurance policy, each is marked "ORIGINAL" on its face and no indication of no. of originals issued. . ...

Dear PTN
I agree that the BL is discrepant, despite the fact that the signature is included in one box. and in this case, the context does not help to determine that the agent has signed for the carrier (in fact, we can assume he may sign for the master).
Regards
Luu Anh Tuyet

Photocopy of original BL is not ''original BL'', hence, it will not be checked under UCP600, art.20. As a result, it is not necessary to bear such requirements as showing carrier's name, port of loading, etc, except when the credit expressly states so. . Furthermore, in case original B/L bear carrie...

I am looking forward to receiving opinions on the following case: L/C required in Field 46A: "Photocopy of original bill of lading made out to order of applicant, marked ''freight payable in Hongkong'', must specify the name of loading port and discharging port'' . We presented photocopy of ori...

I think the discrepancies in both cases given by JohnLim and AK are invalid for the reason: - art14j stress that ''when'' (be reminded with the word ''when'') the address and contact details of the applicant appear as a part of consignee or notify party on a transport docs, they must be as stated in...