L/C does not stipulate consignee in transport document

IlonaKubile · Post by **IlonaKubile** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:00 am

L/C requires presentation of a transport document (RWB), but does not specify consignee.

In RWB presented consignee is other than the applicant.

Is the situation discrepant?

Which article of UCP500 or ISBP would be applicable?

Regards.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:00 am

Without liability/responsibility:

No & sub-Art 13a.
[edited 4/18/2004 1:59:51 PM]

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:00 am

Article 28 applies, but has no specific requirement relating to consignee. There is no discrepancy.

Laurence

Yahya · Post by **Yahya** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:00 am

How can you prevent that the goods would be taken from the customs by the new consignee(!)while you are still checking docs ? what would the Applicant do with the docs which they have no control over the goods?
There is no UCP or ISBP rules which cover this case.
My view,the doc is discrepant.

Yahya

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:00 am

Who is to say the stated consignee is not the applicant's (e.g. freight forwarding) agent or that the applicant is not acting for a 3rd party?

If the applicant wanted goods consigned to it, it should have said so. As it did not, it must bear any adverse consequences that may arise as a consequence.
[edited 4/19/2004 4:05:16 PM]

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 1:00 am

In response to Yahya, the same risk applies in utilising a RWB as anyone utilising an AWB, i.e. neither is a document of title. Therefore delivery is independent of payment by DC. The absence of a consignee in the DC, imposes on the Nominated Bank the obligation to accept as compliant any consignee or lack of same in the RWB, if that Bank agrees to act as Nominated Bank. In taking that decision, the Bank takes upon itself that imposition.

Laurence

Yahya · Post by **Yahya** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:00 am

Laurance,
If the transport doc.were a title of document i.e. (B/L),would your view be the same?

Yahya ,

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:00 am

Yahya,

if the document involved was a B/L, Banks rightly take the opportunity to protect themselves and the applicant by typically calling for the B/L to be consigned to order of the issuing bank. In practical terms, it is unlikely that the B/L instruction would omit a notify party, but even so, assuming the issuing bank ultimately receives the full set B/L, it will have full control of title to the goods, which, again typically, would enable that bank to endorse title to the applicant, or in default of payment, to the highest bidder.
Carriers know that it is not in their best interest to issue a B/L without a notify party and would be reluctant to do so.
The absence of a notify party and the ensuing difficulties should also be spotted by :
Issuing Bank
Advising/Nominated/Confirming Bank
Beneficiary

That absence may also (ceteris paribus)cause problems with the documentation listed, where such documentation requires a consignee.

Laurence