Sub-Art 24(a)(v)

[NigelHolt]

This may seem a very daft question indeed, but I shall pose it anyway.

UCP600 sub-Art. 24(a)(v) requires that an air transport document must appear to be the original for consignor or shipper. Do you think this automatically requires the words ‘original for consignor’ or ‘original for shipper’ or (very) similar to appear on the document (and therefore that an air transport document that simply meets the requirements for an original but is silent as to if it is the ‘original for consignor’ or ‘original for shipper’ is automatically discrepant)?

Grateful if you will please let me know. Thanks in advance for doing so.

[DanielD]

Maybe a daft answer but yes, it will be discrepant. (IATA; copy no 3: "original for shipper", ISBP par.136.
In contrast to 24 b.i.
Regards

Daniel

[NigelHolt]

Thanks Daniel; as I would expect. Like much of ISBP, I do not find para 136 helpful as it just repeats UCP600 without any elaboration.

[DanielD]

I referred to 136 only because it recognizes that an ATD indicates that it is the original for consignor/shipper
Regards
Daniel

[RitaRicci]

Jeremy,
See http://blanker.org/air-waybill.
ICC Pub. 516 which although refers to UCP500, still provides valid data.
With regards
Rita

[NigelHolt]

Rita,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.

My question was the result of receiving an ATD that was not in the standard (IATA?) format and had been prepared by a forwarder on their own stationery as agent for the carrier (a “neutral air waybill” without preprinted identification of the issuing carrier in any form and used by other than an air carrier?). To me sub-Art. 24(a)(v) is drafted on the premise that an ATD will always be the standard (IATA?) format, which to me is not a valid assumption

I do not have a copy of 516.

Regards, Jeremy

[DanielD]

Jeremy,

If it is not a IATA format, all the more reason to state that it is the original for the carrier.
Regards
Daniel