Article 19 a.iii (a)
Article 19 a.iii (a)
Jeremy,
CPT interpretation under Incoterms 2000 reads (part) “the seller delivers the goods to the carrier nominated by him but the seller must in addition pay the cost of carriage necessary to bring the goods to the named destination”
I agree with your comment on “freight prepaid” concept under “CIF/CFR” terms, however, my opinion is that it is a different "ball game" when CPT term is used, if charges (“cost”) of the last leg of transportation (from port B to Place C) was not paid, it should be considered discrepant. What you think?
Regards,
Albert
CPT interpretation under Incoterms 2000 reads (part) “the seller delivers the goods to the carrier nominated by him but the seller must in addition pay the cost of carriage necessary to bring the goods to the named destination”
I agree with your comment on “freight prepaid” concept under “CIF/CFR” terms, however, my opinion is that it is a different "ball game" when CPT term is used, if charges (“cost”) of the last leg of transportation (from port B to Place C) was not paid, it should be considered discrepant. What you think?
Regards,
Albert
Article 19 a.iii (a)
Albert,
I do not see that what Incoterms 2000 says has any relevance to the examination of documents. Firstly, why should a banker even know what Incoterms 2000 says? It is not as if credits are made subject to Incoterms 2000 or that there is any indication in the UCP or credits themselves that Incoterms 2000 is relevant in any way whatsoever to the examination of documents. An Incoterm is simply a piece of data with no greater ‘status’ than any of the other data that appears in the goods description.
Secondly, how does a banker know that the buyer & seller have not varied -fundamentally- the Incoterm concerned, as they are entitled to do, just in the same way as one may fundamentally alter -or override- in a credit the effect of a UCP article and, therefore, taking your example, the buyer and seller have agreed that notwithstanding an Incoterm of CPT Place C the buyer will pay the cost of carriage between Place B and Place C?
Overall, my opinion is that Incoterms have absolutely no role whatsoever in the determination of the compliance of documents (other than they must be quoted in the invoice per the goods description in the credit). Taking your example, if the buyer wants to ensure (to the maximum extent that they can) that the cost of carriage is paid up to Place C then they quite simply need to stipulate that the MMTD is marked ‘Freight paid up to Place C’ and if they do not they bear whatever adverse consequences arise.
This is one reason why I could not understand the American, I think, proposal to include in the SWIFT MT700 message a separate field for the Incoterm as why on earth should any banker care two hoots if it is quoted and, if it is, what it is?
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 9/11/2009 9:36:24 AM]
I do not see that what Incoterms 2000 says has any relevance to the examination of documents. Firstly, why should a banker even know what Incoterms 2000 says? It is not as if credits are made subject to Incoterms 2000 or that there is any indication in the UCP or credits themselves that Incoterms 2000 is relevant in any way whatsoever to the examination of documents. An Incoterm is simply a piece of data with no greater ‘status’ than any of the other data that appears in the goods description.
Secondly, how does a banker know that the buyer & seller have not varied -fundamentally- the Incoterm concerned, as they are entitled to do, just in the same way as one may fundamentally alter -or override- in a credit the effect of a UCP article and, therefore, taking your example, the buyer and seller have agreed that notwithstanding an Incoterm of CPT Place C the buyer will pay the cost of carriage between Place B and Place C?
Overall, my opinion is that Incoterms have absolutely no role whatsoever in the determination of the compliance of documents (other than they must be quoted in the invoice per the goods description in the credit). Taking your example, if the buyer wants to ensure (to the maximum extent that they can) that the cost of carriage is paid up to Place C then they quite simply need to stipulate that the MMTD is marked ‘Freight paid up to Place C’ and if they do not they bear whatever adverse consequences arise.
This is one reason why I could not understand the American, I think, proposal to include in the SWIFT MT700 message a separate field for the Incoterm as why on earth should any banker care two hoots if it is quoted and, if it is, what it is?
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 9/11/2009 9:36:24 AM]
Article 19 a.iii (a)
Jeremy,
Thanks; technically I agree with your comment, however, the reality was that I “ate” the consequence of accepting a similar presentation some time ago. (My case was Port of discharge Los Angeles with final destination Mexico City). [Above case in question could be port of discharge Singapore with final destination Hanoi, Vietnam]. By the way, to answer your question as how to understand more the “American” … Try to avoid as much as possible of “getting sued”.
Have a good one every one!
Albert
Thanks; technically I agree with your comment, however, the reality was that I “ate” the consequence of accepting a similar presentation some time ago. (My case was Port of discharge Los Angeles with final destination Mexico City). [Above case in question could be port of discharge Singapore with final destination Hanoi, Vietnam]. By the way, to answer your question as how to understand more the “American” … Try to avoid as much as possible of “getting sued”.
Have a good one every one!
Albert