On board notation conflicting with other data in the B/L

[GSham]

I refer to ICC opinion TA743rev. The B/L in question shows ocean vessel "L" at port of loading "Sibu". The on board notation shows transhipment via "Bintulu" on vessel "L". The conclusion in the ICC opinion is that there is no discrepancy, which I cannot agree. In accordance with sub-article 14(d), data in a document must not conflict with data in that document. In this case the B/L shows shipment on vessel "L" at Sibu, and at the same time shows shipment on vessel "L" at Bintulu. It is an apparent conflict and hence should be a discrepancy. Could I have your comments please?

[DanielD]

I agree with you (for different reasons). But it is what the BC decides which matters. So you would be well advised to follow their conclusions
Daniel

[GlennRansier_olsABN]

UCP Article 20 b. clearly defines transhipment as "unloading from one vessel and reloading on another vessel" so ICC would have no choice but to rule accordingly as both ports mention the same vessel.

[NigelHolt]

I infer that the ‘Banking’ Commission, in its infinite wisdom, was of the view that while “it would also be incorrect to say that an on board notation will always override where conflicting data appears in a bill of lading” in this case it did by reason of “the on board notation [going] further than the usual format of merely quoting a date, or a date together with the name of the vessel and port of loading”. Thus, when all the data was read IN CONTEXT it was clear there was not any data conflict.

This sort of decision ‘nicely’ illustrates the compliance lottery, and therefore operational risk nightmare, that the documentary credit represents.


[edited 6/14/2011 10:48:22 AM]

[GSham]

The B/L indicates goods shipped on vessel "L" at "Sibu", whereas the on board notation indicates transhipment at "Bintulu" via the same vessel "L". I can't imagine how in practice the goods, loaded at Sibu on vessel L, can be unloaded and reloaded back to vessel L at Bintulu. Very funny!

Gabriel

[NigelHolt]

The only conclusion that I can see one can draw is that a majority (at least) of the sagacious experts of the ‘Banking’ Commission were of the view that the OBN clarified / made clear that in fact the goods were loaded on board the vessel N at Sibu –not the vessel L- for shipment to Bintulu and for transhipment there onto the vessel L (and thus the vessel L was never at Sibu in the first place). Therefore, in the light of this clarification / clear statement there was not any data conflict or transgression of 14(d) or 20(a)(iii).
[edited 6/14/2011 2:10:47 PM]

[GSham]

Can we draw a conclusion that an OBN overrides conflicting data in the B/L?

[NigelHolt]

Not as a general rule given the fonts of unboundless wisdom of the ‘Banking’ Commission state that “it would … be incorrect to say that an on board notation will ALWAYS override where conflicting data appears in a bill of lading”.

Having said that, I am sure you will agree it is all really quite simple on further reflection. When one encounters a seeming conflict between OBN and other port of loading data in the BL one just asks oneself the question “Does the on board notation go further than the usual format of merely quoting a date, or a date together with the name of the vessel and port of loading?” If the answer is ‘yes’ the OBN rules; if the answer is ‘no’ then one regards the BL as being non-compliant.

Overall, I cannot see how the eminent authorities that make up the ‘Banking’ Commission could have made it easier for the document examiner.

[edited 6/14/2011 2:30:48 PM]

[DLloyd1]

Out of interest, what were the goods?