Presented a bill of lading which shows place of receipt as Germany and port of loading as Rotterdam. L/C stipulated shipment from any European port. Negotiating bank checked the documents and found it clean as per Article 20 of UCP 600 and forwarded to the issuing bank. However the same documents were rejected by the issuing bank on the following ground.
-On board notation does not include the port of loading as stipulated in the L/C.
I believe there is no such requirement in UCP 600 that on board notation should include the port of loading when place of receipt and port of loading is different (it was in Article 23 of UCP 500).
May i ask your comments.
Shahed
Toronto
Article 20
Article 20
Shahed,
A pretty sore subject, there has been extensive discussions, arguments, articles and so on about this subject. See also Commentary and a recent opinion published in Insight of Jan. 2008. If it is clear that the transport between Germany and Rotterdam was not effected by vessel, in my opinion it would be OK. Otherwise,
??????. Better be cautious.
Daniel
A pretty sore subject, there has been extensive discussions, arguments, articles and so on about this subject. See also Commentary and a recent opinion published in Insight of Jan. 2008. If it is clear that the transport between Germany and Rotterdam was not effected by vessel, in my opinion it would be OK. Otherwise,
??????. Better be cautious.
Daniel
-
JessieLiew
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Article 20
Dear Shahed,
I would assume that the LC calls for a port to port bill of lading.
Since the L/C stipulated shipment is from any European port, the discrepancy as quoted by the issuing bank is, in my opinion, not valid. Please refer to Art.20 iii for your rebuttal.
Best Regards,
Robert
I would assume that the LC calls for a port to port bill of lading.
Since the L/C stipulated shipment is from any European port, the discrepancy as quoted by the issuing bank is, in my opinion, not valid. Please refer to Art.20 iii for your rebuttal.
Best Regards,
Robert
Article 20
Shahed,
I agree with you that there is seemingly no requirement in UCP 600 that on board notation should automatically include the port of loading when place of receipt and port of loading are different.
However, it seems to me that the UCP600 Drafting Group and the ‘Banking’ Commission are of the opposite view. This is because the last para on p91 of the Commentary and the answer to Query 3 in TA 635rev are apparently concerned with ‘the document checker … be[ing] able to determine that the bill of lading appears to indicate that the shipped on board statement (pre-printed wording or by a separate notation) relates to loading on board the named vessel at the port of loading STATED IN THE CREDIT and not to any pre-carriage of the goods between a place of receipt or taking in charge and the port of loading’.
Here both the stated place of receipt and port of loading both meet the port of loading requirement as stated in the credit and therefore would suggest there is not any non-compliance in the case of your example. However, the second part of the sentence quoted (‘and not to any pre-carriage …’) and more particularly TA635rev going on to state:
‘When a place of receipt or taking in charge is the same as the port of loading, e.g., place of receipt Hong Kong CY and port of loading Hong Kong, and the bill of lading does not evidence any means of pre-carriage, i.e., only shows the name of the vessel, the ports are to be deemed one and the same place, and therefore an on board notation, as described above, will not be required.’,
only make sense if the position under UCP600 sub-Article 20(a)(ii) is the same as under UCP500 sub-Article 23(a)(ii) last paragraph.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 2/26/2008 12:24:43 PM]
I agree with you that there is seemingly no requirement in UCP 600 that on board notation should automatically include the port of loading when place of receipt and port of loading are different.
However, it seems to me that the UCP600 Drafting Group and the ‘Banking’ Commission are of the opposite view. This is because the last para on p91 of the Commentary and the answer to Query 3 in TA 635rev are apparently concerned with ‘the document checker … be[ing] able to determine that the bill of lading appears to indicate that the shipped on board statement (pre-printed wording or by a separate notation) relates to loading on board the named vessel at the port of loading STATED IN THE CREDIT and not to any pre-carriage of the goods between a place of receipt or taking in charge and the port of loading’.
Here both the stated place of receipt and port of loading both meet the port of loading requirement as stated in the credit and therefore would suggest there is not any non-compliance in the case of your example. However, the second part of the sentence quoted (‘and not to any pre-carriage …’) and more particularly TA635rev going on to state:
‘When a place of receipt or taking in charge is the same as the port of loading, e.g., place of receipt Hong Kong CY and port of loading Hong Kong, and the bill of lading does not evidence any means of pre-carriage, i.e., only shows the name of the vessel, the ports are to be deemed one and the same place, and therefore an on board notation, as described above, will not be required.’,
only make sense if the position under UCP600 sub-Article 20(a)(ii) is the same as under UCP500 sub-Article 23(a)(ii) last paragraph.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 2/26/2008 12:24:43 PM]
Article 20
Jeremy,
If the first leg is not effected by a vessel (in Shahed's case we do not know), the notation "on board"
refers logically to the vessel at the loading port, here Rotterdam. Therefore the B/L is correct.
But if the pre-shippment has been effected by vessel in Germany, the notation on board, according to the DG and opinion of BC and not according to UCP 600, must indicate to which vessel it refers.
So it would be discrepant.
Daniel
If the first leg is not effected by a vessel (in Shahed's case we do not know), the notation "on board"
refers logically to the vessel at the loading port, here Rotterdam. Therefore the B/L is correct.
But if the pre-shippment has been effected by vessel in Germany, the notation on board, according to the DG and opinion of BC and not according to UCP 600, must indicate to which vessel it refers.
So it would be discrepant.
Daniel
Article 20
I certainly agree with the logic of your position, Daniel.
Article 20
Danial - Will you please explain what is "according to Dg and opinion of BC".
Shahed
Shahed
Article 20
Shahed,
Sorry about my stupid shortcuts
DG = Drafting Group. I refer to the DG's Commentary among other things
BC = Banking Commission. I refer to an official opinion which has been recently approved and published in Insight Jan. 2008
Daniel
Daniel
Sorry about my stupid shortcuts
DG = Drafting Group. I refer to the DG's Commentary among other things
BC = Banking Commission. I refer to an official opinion which has been recently approved and published in Insight Jan. 2008
Daniel
Daniel
Article 20
Danial - I read the DC Insight Jan issue but could not find the ICC opinion. Please let me know which part of DC Insight i need to search to get the related opinion. Thanks.
Shahed
Toronto
Shahed
Toronto
Article 20
Shahed,
Its TA635rev in 'Queries and responses
First Banking Commission Opinions under UCP 600.'
Its TA635rev in 'Queries and responses
First Banking Commission Opinions under UCP 600.'