Must a B/lL showing voyage number?

[MeiLin,MandyChan]

If a LC do not have special requirement, a B/L not showing voyage no. (even a vessel name) may not be treated as discrepant document, but whether it is reasonable? Pls comment.

[T.O.Lee]

Dear Mandy,

MISSING A VOYAGE NUMBER V. MISSING A VESSEL NAME IN A BL - DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES

For absence of voyage number in a BL, if you try to pin it down as a valid discrepancy where the DC does not require this information expressly, then the beneficiary may ask you: "What Article in the UCP 500 that I have violated?"

If you cannot provide a satisfactory answer to this question, then how can you convince the beneficiary?

Having said that, missing the name of the carrying vessel in a BL is different and this should be deemed to be a valid discrepancy, particularly when the vessel name cannot be found even in the on board notation.

"What Article in the UCP 500 that I have violated?"

Missing a vessel name in a BL violates UCP 500 sub -Article 23 (a) (ii).

www.tolee.com

[edited 11/4/02 2:31:45 PM]

[larryBacon]

I agree with T.O's assessment except where a DC prohibiting partial shipment, but allowing a range of ports (e.g. any EU port) is the case. Here more than one B/L is permitted from different ports, but the same voyage no. would be required with the same vessel name.

Laurence

[T.O.Lee]

Laurence,

Thanks for your extension to our opinions. However the BsL need to state also the same destination or port of discharge in your case, as required under UCP 500 sub Article 40 (b).

www.tolee.com

[larryBacon]

T.O.

I agree with your comment but the original question asked referred to voyage no. & vessel name, so I have limited my response to these aspects.

Laurence