art. 19 or art.20

[DanielD]

Dear people,
DC requires BL (art. 20) evidencing shipment from Rotterdam to Indian port.
B/L presented:
-shipped preprinted
-Place of receipt: Dordrecht
-Port of loading Rotterdam -vessel X
At first sight, no problem, as the carriage from Dordrecht to Rotterdam cannot have been effected by vessel so the preprinted "shipped" applies to vessel X, port of loading: Rotterdam. But if you read the small print (on the front)
we can read:" shipped bla, bla, for carriage from the port of loading (or the place of receipt if mentioned above) bla, bla, ..."
So for me the B/L is a TD as per art. 19 and should include a notation "on board" with vessel, etc... (as in 500)
Would you agree?
Regards
Daniel

[AlbertB]

Yes.

Please see Gary Collyer's comment (Coastinline Solution Newsleeter - Issue 13. 11/13/07), also Official Opinion TA635rev - Unpublished.

Regards,
Albert

[KimChristensen]

Dear Daniel,

I must admit this question puzzles me a great deal – and I am not even sure I understand exactly what you are asking?

You say “art. 19 or art.20” – but the LC requires a B/L … meaning that it should be examined according to article 20. Where does article 19 come from in this case?

Further I simply do not (for the purpose of UCP 600) understand the phrase “B/L is a TD as per art. 19” ??

That being said I do (I think at least agree to the conclusion – that an “extended on board notation” is required – because the B/L includes a place of receipt prior to the port of loading required by the LC.
Not that I personally find this a logic and sound conclusion – but this applies (I assume) even where the leg from the place of receipt to the port of loading is done by truck. I think that this will be crystal clear after 24 October

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

The article to apply is determined by the terms of the credit and not the document presented unless the credit allows a document that falls within either article. Thus there can be no debate on the question here: Article 20 applies irrespective of the document actually presented.

[DanielD]

Jeremy, Albert: thank you
Kim,
What is puzzling is the fact that DCs still require a TD according to art. 20 whereas in the real world a multimodal transport has been effected by the carrier. I think you wrote something about it. Unlike ISBP 97 a notation shipped does not always seem to mean "shipped on board". I will add that close attention should be paid to the small prints of TDs. Daniel

[KimChristensen]

Dear Daniel,

You are so right that that I did in fact write something about it; perhaps too much

Anyway … you are also right of course that you can have a transport document that complies with UCP 600 article 20; i.e. acceptable as a “port-to-port” document for the LC banker – that for the transport industry is in fact a multimodal transport document; either because of its title, the applicable rules or the content the document.

However at this point in time; even I have to accept that the banking industry has chosen a very abstract approach to this issue – that seems 180 degree from the perception in the real world

That approach dictates for example that:

1) It is the wording in the LC that determines which UCP 600 transport article should be the basis for the examination of the document.

2) It is (amongst other things) the ports/places mentioned in the LC that is relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with the required UCP 600 transport article.

3) Examination is based on the “however named” principle; meaning for example that even though a Bill of lading is required – the document may be titled “Multimodal Transport Document” – as long as it complies with UCP 600 article 20.

So in relation to your initial question … and sorry for teasing you … you are correct that the presented document may in fact (for the transport industry) be a multimodal transport document.. but as long as the LC calls for a bill of lading – then article 20 applies – not article 19.

I am not sure (do not know for sure in fact) if you are correct about your “shipped” versus “shipped on board” comment (??) I think it is because of exactly that; i.e. wording in bills of lading that the “shipped” may refer to the place of receipt – that the current position is that an extended on board notation is required where that field is different from the loading port as per the LC. I have been discussing that with Maersk Line; they claim that this is not correct (not for them at least); They would never release a “shipped B/L” … before it is in fact shipped on board at the port of loading.

And there I did it again – wrote too much about this topic

Best regards
Kim