Intended vessel-remark
Recently a B/L was presented showing in field vessel and voyage no. a vessel named ‘A’ with asterisk and in field port of loading 'C', country 'E' (field 44E of the L/C indicated any port in country 'E') with no asterisk.
The continuation of the field vessel and voyage no starting with the asterisk indicated the following remark: intention to load at 'D' (port in country 'F') on vessel ‘B’.
There was a preprinted shipped on board date on the B/L without indicating port and vessel.
In our opinion it is ambiguous what the issuer of the B/L wanted to express by this remark.
Either a real intended vessel remark (to be loaded either in 'C', country 'E' onto vessel ‘A’ or in 'D' (port in country 'F') onto vessel ‘B’) or should it be only an indication regarding an intended transhipment at port 'D'.
The issuing bank refused the documents due to the fact that there is an intended vessel remark and the on board notation did not include vesel's name.
An argument however for the second intention (transhipment) is that the port of loading did not show the asterisk with the a.m. remark.
What is your opinion?
Thank you for your comments.
Regards
Art. 20a UCP 600
Art. 20a UCP 600
If I have surmised correctly you have bill of lading with a dated on board notation which shows the port of loading in accordance with the credit terms but with an asterisk next to the vessel name linking that box to a statement 'intention to load at.....on vessel......'.
In my opinion you have to effectively ignore the asterick remarks from the point of view of establishing whether or not the document meets the requirements of UCP600 article 20.
Provided the bill of lading in its usual boxes names a vessel and a port of loading and there is no intended vessel remark or any of the scenarios indicated paragraph E6 of ISBP745, then there is no need for any additional remarks to be made on the on board notation.
Thus I would regard the astericked note to be of no relevance whatsoever and attach no value to it other than to remark that it is a reference to possible transhipment of the goods.
Andy
In my opinion you have to effectively ignore the asterick remarks from the point of view of establishing whether or not the document meets the requirements of UCP600 article 20.
Provided the bill of lading in its usual boxes names a vessel and a port of loading and there is no intended vessel remark or any of the scenarios indicated paragraph E6 of ISBP745, then there is no need for any additional remarks to be made on the on board notation.
Thus I would regard the astericked note to be of no relevance whatsoever and attach no value to it other than to remark that it is a reference to possible transhipment of the goods.
Andy