POL differs from POR

[MOHAMMEDMUJEEB]

Hi experts,

I received a B/L wherein Place of receipt is differ from Port of Loading, does onboard notation needs to evidence actual vessel name and actual port of loading as UCP 600 is silent on this.,

[GlennRansier_]

What type of shipment does the LC request, a port to port or a multimodal?
The response differs based upon the LC.

[KimChristensen]

Dear Mohammed,

This whole issue has been highly debated – also in this forum (see the PS). As far as I understand the UCP 600 drafting group will formulate a document that once and for all clarifies this matter – Think before the next meeting in November.

However for the time being … if what you are asking is whether or not this UCP 500 provision:

Quote
If the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading, the on board notation must also include the port of loading stipulated in the Credit and the name of the vessel on which the goods have been loaded, even if they have been loaded on the vessel named in the bill of lading. This provision also applies whenever loading on board the vessel is indicated by pre-printed wording on the bill of lading
Unquote

… also applies under UCP 600 – then my very personal view after reading all the comments from Gary Collyer and the ICC Opinions and the UCP 600 Commentary on the topic would be: Yes!

(This is by the way not the same as I agree with that – or find it la logic conclusion after reading UCP 600 article 20)

I hope this helps you.

Best regards
Kim


Ps. See the string called “ARTICLE 20”; last posting is dated 16 Nov 07.

[MOHAMMEDMUJEEB]

Thank you so much KimChristensen,
I would appreciate you if could tell me funda behind this concept,why do you need an onboard notation evidencing Port of loading and actual vessel name.

[KimChristensen]

Dear Mohammed,

I am not sure that I am the right one to answer this one Anyways … here is my best shot:

… as far as I understand the UCP 600 drafting group it was never intended to change the UCP 500 provision - but the wording used there signals a multimodal transport – which is not appropriate in a port-to-port article (UCP 600 article 20) – and therefore the wording was changed.

Subsequently – B/L wordings have been presented that basically indicates that the pre-printed “shipped on board” wording could relate to the place of receipt if that box is filled out – and even on a truck….

So I guess the rationale is that the banks want to be 110 % sure on which vessel in which port the goods are on board …

I hope this helps you.

Best regards
Kim