L/C state that Freight Forwarder B/L not acceptable even if signed as a carrier. Thus, B/L is signed as carrier is not sure that is master B/L. Can it happen? If a shipping company acts both logistic and transport, Is B/L signed by that company acceptable? Pls help, tks.
I seem not to undertand this condition.
K.Anh
FORWARDER B/L
-
THI THUY MYT_
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
FORWARDER B/L
Where a credit contains such a condition the nominated and issuing banks are not required to verify if, as a question of fact, the carrier is a ‘freight forwarder’, in other words to go beyond checking the documents on their face. The only way that this condition can possibly be transgressed is if the documents themselves indicate that the carrier is a ‘freight forwarder’.
See also 'issue 1' in Opinion R562 / TA572.
[edited 7/16/2009 9:55:55 AM]
See also 'issue 1' in Opinion R562 / TA572.
[edited 7/16/2009 9:55:55 AM]
-
THI THUY MYT_
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
FORWARDER B/L
Dear JSMITH
Tks for yr reply
.
In this case, our B/L not show any information evidence carrier as "forwarder", but in fact i know that is forwarder. Thus, Is B/L discrepency?.
Besides, B/L presented under title of shipping company A but signed by shipping company B as carrier, is it discrepency?
Tks for yr reply
.
In this case, our B/L not show any information evidence carrier as "forwarder", but in fact i know that is forwarder. Thus, Is B/L discrepency?.
Besides, B/L presented under title of shipping company A but signed by shipping company B as carrier, is it discrepency?
-
GlennRansier_
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
FORWARDER B/L
No one is responsible nor should they be reviewing the terms and conditions of the BL to determine if a company is a carrier, forwarder or other. There are a variety of ICC opinions on this topic under both UCP 500 and 600.
If a carrier has signed the BL then it should not be considered a discrepancy.
However, without actually viewing the BL it is difficult to make a final decision.
If a carrier has signed the BL then it should not be considered a discrepancy.
However, without actually viewing the BL it is difficult to make a final decision.
FORWARDER B/L
1. Your knowledge of the activities of the company that has signed as carrier is irrelevant to the compliance of the documents and therefore it does not create a discrepancy.
2. Without seeing the BL I cannot say for certain but have to wonder if it falls foul of 14(d) and/or 20(a)(i).
[edited 7/21/2009 11:34:16 AM]
2. Without seeing the BL I cannot say for certain but have to wonder if it falls foul of 14(d) and/or 20(a)(i).
[edited 7/21/2009 11:34:16 AM]
FORWARDER B/L
One thing I find odd is that if the applicant or issuing bank is worried that the contractual carrier might not own (or lease) the carrying vessel, why they do not simply stipulate that the carrier must present a certificate (or include it in the BL) stating that they own (or lease) the carrying vessel. This would seem to me to be a far more effective solution than simply purporting to exclude the carrier being a freight forwarder.
[edited 7/21/2009 1:19:21 PM]
[edited 7/21/2009 1:19:21 PM]
-
THI THUY MYT_
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
FORWARDER B/L
Dear JSMITH!!
.
On the same case, pls let us know yr opinon about cases a/f:
1. The title of B/L shown FBL (FIATA B/L)
2. The logo of B/L shown ABC Forwarder Co Ltd and signed as ABC Forwarder Co Ltd as carrier
.
Are both cases inconsistent with the condition of L/C "Forwarder B/L is not acceptable"? because:
1. Fiata B/L is designed for issuance by Freight Forwarder.
2. the name of shipping co show the word "Forwarder"
.
Tks much!!!!
.
On the same case, pls let us know yr opinon about cases a/f:
1. The title of B/L shown FBL (FIATA B/L)
2. The logo of B/L shown ABC Forwarder Co Ltd and signed as ABC Forwarder Co Ltd as carrier
.
Are both cases inconsistent with the condition of L/C "Forwarder B/L is not acceptable"? because:
1. Fiata B/L is designed for issuance by Freight Forwarder.
2. the name of shipping co show the word "Forwarder"
.
Tks much!!!!
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
FORWARDER B/L
Dear K.Anh,
Interesting topic.
I think that the ICC opinion quoted by Jeremy (TA.572) covers a different scenario than the example you mention.
Personally I would expect the outcome to be different.
I have discussed this issue with Middle East banks that include the clause:
Forwarder B/L not acceptable even if signed as a carrier or as agent for the carrier.
They do not expect a nominated bank to “go beyond” the document and check whether or not the company issuing the bill of lading is in fact a freight forwarder. They are (of course) fully aware that document compliance will be determined by the documents alone.
In that respect I think your last posting is really relevant: To me both examples clearly indicate from the document that the issuing party is in fact a freight forwarding company – even though the document may well be signed “as carrier”.
I realize this goes against the normal banking perception of what a freight forwarder is – but it is a fact that in real life outside the narrow LC world a freight forwarder can in fact assume carrier responsibility – and still be a freight forwarder. There is no contradiction.
Another tricky angle is that a number of freight forwarders use “neutral” B/L forms – i.e. forms that do not reveal that they are in fact a freight forwarder.
Best regards
Kim
Interesting topic.
I think that the ICC opinion quoted by Jeremy (TA.572) covers a different scenario than the example you mention.
Personally I would expect the outcome to be different.
I have discussed this issue with Middle East banks that include the clause:
Forwarder B/L not acceptable even if signed as a carrier or as agent for the carrier.
They do not expect a nominated bank to “go beyond” the document and check whether or not the company issuing the bill of lading is in fact a freight forwarder. They are (of course) fully aware that document compliance will be determined by the documents alone.
In that respect I think your last posting is really relevant: To me both examples clearly indicate from the document that the issuing party is in fact a freight forwarding company – even though the document may well be signed “as carrier”.
I realize this goes against the normal banking perception of what a freight forwarder is – but it is a fact that in real life outside the narrow LC world a freight forwarder can in fact assume carrier responsibility – and still be a freight forwarder. There is no contradiction.
Another tricky angle is that a number of freight forwarders use “neutral” B/L forms – i.e. forms that do not reveal that they are in fact a freight forwarder.
Best regards
Kim
FORWARDER B/L
Kim,
Sorry but how can I check if an entity signing as carrier or agent for the carrier is FW or not without going beyond the document?
Regards
Daniel
Sorry but how can I check if an entity signing as carrier or agent for the carrier is FW or not without going beyond the document?
Regards
Daniel
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
FORWARDER B/L
Dear Daniel,
No need to be sorry
Frankly speaking I can not say – and I did not invent that clause … just trying a relate to it in a practical manner
The points I am trying to make are the following:
1) This clause is different from the one in TA.572; in fact I feel confident that it is a direct reaction to that. Therefore one can not just expect the outcome to be the same!
2) This clause does not change the standards for examining the documents (e.g. that it is based on the documents alone); therefore I would not expect this to mean that the document checker must go beyond the documents (and as said I feel confident that the issuer does not expect that either).
There are many dilemmas in this case; most spring from the LC bankers wrong perception of what a freight forwarder is. So I guess that if a bank does not understand such clause they should ask the issuing bank to clarify what they are to look for .. in the documents – that is!
I understand that in some parts of the world one should be really careful with freight forwarders (as it takes nothing more than a sign on the door to become one) – and in that respect I would repeat Jeremy’s (good) suggestion from 21 July: Ask for a certificate from the carrier that they own the vessel.
Alternatively (e.g. on FOB shipments) stipulate in the LC who is to issue the bill of lading ….
This surely is a never ending story … I hope that a revision of the ISBP will sort this out once and for all (Naive … said the naked child)
Enjoy Friday.
Best regards
Kim
No need to be sorry
Frankly speaking I can not say – and I did not invent that clause … just trying a relate to it in a practical manner
The points I am trying to make are the following:
1) This clause is different from the one in TA.572; in fact I feel confident that it is a direct reaction to that. Therefore one can not just expect the outcome to be the same!
2) This clause does not change the standards for examining the documents (e.g. that it is based on the documents alone); therefore I would not expect this to mean that the document checker must go beyond the documents (and as said I feel confident that the issuer does not expect that either).
There are many dilemmas in this case; most spring from the LC bankers wrong perception of what a freight forwarder is. So I guess that if a bank does not understand such clause they should ask the issuing bank to clarify what they are to look for .. in the documents – that is!
I understand that in some parts of the world one should be really careful with freight forwarders (as it takes nothing more than a sign on the door to become one) – and in that respect I would repeat Jeremy’s (good) suggestion from 21 July: Ask for a certificate from the carrier that they own the vessel.
Alternatively (e.g. on FOB shipments) stipulate in the LC who is to issue the bill of lading ….
This surely is a never ending story … I hope that a revision of the ISBP will sort this out once and for all (Naive … said the naked child
)Enjoy Friday.
Best regards
Kim