Even if the B/L meets requirements of Art 20 and is in compliance with the L/C, it seems still as not possible for advising bank to take position re. issuer of B/L, under a L/C with a/m clause.
Should you accept, without any reservations, the B/L issued in accordance with art 20 and as per L/C terms
or
should you reserve you to the extend that you are not able to determine if B/L issuer is actually freight forwarder acting as carrier or as agent for the carrier.
It would be interesting to hear why such requirements att all.
Thanks in advance for all opinions.
B/L ISSUED BY FORWARDER OR NVOCC EVEN ACTING AS ACARRIER OR
-
SladjanaSkakic
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:27 pm
B/L ISSUED BY FORWARDER OR NVOCC EVEN ACTING AS ACARRIER OR
I would go back to issuing bank asking them to tell me exactly how I do know if the issuer of the B/L is a FF or a NVOCC
Daniel
Daniel
B/L ISSUED BY FORWARDER OR NVOCC EVEN ACTING AS ACARRIER OR
And I suppose that the liabilities of a FF or NVOCC are not he same that the ones of the actual carrier
Regards
Daniel
Regards
Daniel
B/L ISSUED BY FORWARDER OR NVOCC EVEN ACTING AS ACARRIER OR
I do not see any requirement in the above-quoted condition for the nominated or issuing bank to verify if the contractual carrier or their agent, if any, actually is a ‘FF’ or ‘NVOCC’. One would need something quite express in the credit to override the fundamental principle of document examination as outlined in 14(a).
To me, this is quite clearly a non-documentary condition and thus provided there is nothing in the presentation to suggest the contractual carrier or their agent, if any, is a ‘FF’ or ‘NVOCC’ the BLs cannot be discrepant even if in reality they are an ‘FF’ or ‘NVOCC’ .
[edited 10/20/2011 1:58:10 PM]
To me, this is quite clearly a non-documentary condition and thus provided there is nothing in the presentation to suggest the contractual carrier or their agent, if any, is a ‘FF’ or ‘NVOCC’ the BLs cannot be discrepant even if in reality they are an ‘FF’ or ‘NVOCC’ .
[edited 10/20/2011 1:58:10 PM]
-
SladjanaSkakic
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:27 pm
B/L ISSUED BY FORWARDER OR NVOCC EVEN ACTING AS ACARRIER OR
It is a non-documentary condition as there is no requirement for a separate document to be presented stated that the B/L issuer is not FF or NVOCC, but isn’t it similar to, for example :
B/L must not state the L/C no.
or
the B/L must state the LC no.
Those are also non-documentary conditions, i.e. no separate document is required to that effect, but the nominated (and the issuing) bank must check the B/L having in mind that L/C must not or must be stated , i.e. if non-documentary condition is: B/L must not state the L/C no., than banks can not accept the B/L stating the L/C no.
In other words, if the non-documentary condition says that FF or NVOCC are not acceptable even if acting as carrier or agent for the carrier, banks must be able to see it, but it does not look to me that banks can …
B/L must not state the L/C no.
or
the B/L must state the LC no.
Those are also non-documentary conditions, i.e. no separate document is required to that effect, but the nominated (and the issuing) bank must check the B/L having in mind that L/C must not or must be stated , i.e. if non-documentary condition is: B/L must not state the L/C no., than banks can not accept the B/L stating the L/C no.
In other words, if the non-documentary condition says that FF or NVOCC are not acceptable even if acting as carrier or agent for the carrier, banks must be able to see it, but it does not look to me that banks can …
B/L ISSUED BY FORWARDER OR NVOCC EVEN ACTING AS ACARRIER OR
“B/L must not state the L/C no.” and “the B/L must state the LC no.” are not NDCs. Whether or not something is a NDC has nothing to do with whether or not a ‘separate’ document is required.
Nonetheless, I agree the condition in question could be read as: “BILLS OF LADING MUST NOT SHOW THE CARRIER OR AGENT IS A FREIGHT FORWARDER OR NON-VESSEL OWNING COMMON CARRIER”.
Whether or not my earlier view that the condition in question is a NDC is correct, and thank you for making me think twice about this, either approach achieves the same result given 14(h) is subject to 14(d).
Nonetheless, I agree the condition in question could be read as: “BILLS OF LADING MUST NOT SHOW THE CARRIER OR AGENT IS A FREIGHT FORWARDER OR NON-VESSEL OWNING COMMON CARRIER”.
Whether or not my earlier view that the condition in question is a NDC is correct, and thank you for making me think twice about this, either approach achieves the same result given 14(h) is subject to 14(d).
B/L ISSUED BY FORWARDER OR NVOCC EVEN ACTING AS ACARRIER OR
Jeremy,
It is not a NDC but it is a condition which is impossible to check.
It seems that, au stade actuel de la science, you cannot stop a FF or a NVOCC from issuing a transport doc. under a DC if it complies with the relevant article.
Regards
Daniel
It is not a NDC but it is a condition which is impossible to check.
It seems that, au stade actuel de la science, you cannot stop a FF or a NVOCC from issuing a transport doc. under a DC if it complies with the relevant article.
Regards
Daniel
B/L ISSUED BY FORWARDER OR NVOCC EVEN ACTING AS ACARRIER OR
Daniel,
You might well be correct that this is not a NDC. However, I can see an argument that it is, on the basis that the document to indicate compliance with the condition, i.e. that the (contractual) carrier or agent is not a forwarder or NVOCC, is not stipulated. Ultimately, though, I regard this question as being academic for the reasons I have already given.
Also, I agree that UCP600 does not exclude BLs of the type described in the condition in question. However, one can nonetheless exclude BLs that indicate the (contractual) carrier or their agent is a forwarder or NVOCC along the lines of the condition I quote in my posting above. What would constitute evidence that the (contractual) carrier or their agent is a forwarder or NVOCC is a matter of debate, but I would suggest that issue on a FIATA form would certainly do so.
Regards, Jeremy
You might well be correct that this is not a NDC. However, I can see an argument that it is, on the basis that the document to indicate compliance with the condition, i.e. that the (contractual) carrier or agent is not a forwarder or NVOCC, is not stipulated. Ultimately, though, I regard this question as being academic for the reasons I have already given.
Also, I agree that UCP600 does not exclude BLs of the type described in the condition in question. However, one can nonetheless exclude BLs that indicate the (contractual) carrier or their agent is a forwarder or NVOCC along the lines of the condition I quote in my posting above. What would constitute evidence that the (contractual) carrier or their agent is a forwarder or NVOCC is a matter of debate, but I would suggest that issue on a FIATA form would certainly do so.
Regards, Jeremy