Credit allows for transhipment. Is there a need for the Bill of Lading to show the names of the 2 vessels involved in the carriage of the goods? Is it a discrepancy if the BL showed only the name of the Precarrying vessel but silent on the Ocean vessel?
I would also be grateful if you could advise us whether there is a need to state the place/port of transhipment in the BL where transhipment is involved i.e. is it a discrepancy if BL is silent on the port/place of transhipment?
Thank you.
Transhipment details
Transhipment details
UCP 500 IS SILENT ON TRANSHIPMENT
The UCP 500 is silent on the extend of transhipment data content to be shown in a bill of lading.
TRANSHIPMENT AFTER MAIN CARRIAGE HAS BEEN COMPLETED
However, for transhipment involving a feeder vessel or a barge powered by a tug boat, particularly after the main carriage has been completed, it is not necessary to show the name of the feeder vessel or the barge, since they may have no names other than the registration No, such as 519 YXV.
It is also difficult to know their names, if any, until after completion of the main carriage, arriving at the port of transhipment.
TRANSHIPMENT BY ANOTHER OCEAN VESSEL
If transhipment is done by another ocean vessel, then the ocean/marine/port-to-port bill of lading must show the name of this second ocean vessel and the transhipment port.
The carrier should have planned the whole voyage from port of loading to the port of discharge named in the DC when it accepts the cargo for trasnport by transhipment. If there is such a planning, the shipper has the right to know. Otherwise how can the shipper sue the carrier for damages to the cargo due to unreasonable deviation, which is prohibited by the Carrige of Goods by Sea Act 1992 of UK?
On the other hand, in a transhipment bill of lading, under the terms and conditions of carriage printed at the back, the the first carrier would only be held responsible for the first leg of sea carriage and if the name of the second vessel and the port of transhipment are both unknown in the bill of lading, then how can the shipper know who should be held liable for the second leg of sea carriage?
The UCP 500 cares very much about who is the carrier, including the second carrier in a transhipment bill of lading.
TRANSHIPMENT UNDER MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
However, in a multimodal transport document, it may not be necessary to show the port of transhipment and the name of the second ocean vessel as the MTO (Multimodal Transprot Operator) has already taken up the full responsibility of a carrier throughout the voyage and in return the MTO should enjoy flexibility to transport the cargo in the most economical, safe and fast way.
The MTO has the right to change the routing, if necessary. Hence under the MT Rules, there is no obligation for the MTO to show all the transport details in the multimodal transport document, other than the place of receipt or taking in charge to the place of final destination.
"INTENDED VESSEL" IS ALLOWED IN MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
This is under a totally different concept of carriage. Hence, "intended vessel" (which is not allowed in UCP 500 Article 23) is allowed here under UCP 500 sub Article 26 (a) (iii) (b).
Needless to say, in multimodal transport, transhipment is always allowed.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/17/01 7:36:23 PM]
The UCP 500 is silent on the extend of transhipment data content to be shown in a bill of lading.
TRANSHIPMENT AFTER MAIN CARRIAGE HAS BEEN COMPLETED
However, for transhipment involving a feeder vessel or a barge powered by a tug boat, particularly after the main carriage has been completed, it is not necessary to show the name of the feeder vessel or the barge, since they may have no names other than the registration No, such as 519 YXV.
It is also difficult to know their names, if any, until after completion of the main carriage, arriving at the port of transhipment.
TRANSHIPMENT BY ANOTHER OCEAN VESSEL
If transhipment is done by another ocean vessel, then the ocean/marine/port-to-port bill of lading must show the name of this second ocean vessel and the transhipment port.
The carrier should have planned the whole voyage from port of loading to the port of discharge named in the DC when it accepts the cargo for trasnport by transhipment. If there is such a planning, the shipper has the right to know. Otherwise how can the shipper sue the carrier for damages to the cargo due to unreasonable deviation, which is prohibited by the Carrige of Goods by Sea Act 1992 of UK?
On the other hand, in a transhipment bill of lading, under the terms and conditions of carriage printed at the back, the the first carrier would only be held responsible for the first leg of sea carriage and if the name of the second vessel and the port of transhipment are both unknown in the bill of lading, then how can the shipper know who should be held liable for the second leg of sea carriage?
The UCP 500 cares very much about who is the carrier, including the second carrier in a transhipment bill of lading.
TRANSHIPMENT UNDER MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
However, in a multimodal transport document, it may not be necessary to show the port of transhipment and the name of the second ocean vessel as the MTO (Multimodal Transprot Operator) has already taken up the full responsibility of a carrier throughout the voyage and in return the MTO should enjoy flexibility to transport the cargo in the most economical, safe and fast way.
The MTO has the right to change the routing, if necessary. Hence under the MT Rules, there is no obligation for the MTO to show all the transport details in the multimodal transport document, other than the place of receipt or taking in charge to the place of final destination.
"INTENDED VESSEL" IS ALLOWED IN MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT
This is under a totally different concept of carriage. Hence, "intended vessel" (which is not allowed in UCP 500 Article 23) is allowed here under UCP 500 sub Article 26 (a) (iii) (b).
Needless to say, in multimodal transport, transhipment is always allowed.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/17/01 7:36:23 PM]