ISBP para 113, demurrage, detention ...

[SladjanaSkakic]

Letters of credit excluding some articles from the UCP600 are, unfortunately, not unusual.

We can see that UCP600, Art 26C is quite often excluded, i.e. B/L showing any charges additional
to freight charges is not acceptable.

As per ISBP paragraph 113 charges additional to freight charges may be expressed by use of shipment terms, such as FI, FO, FIO, FIOS.

The same paragraph states: “A reference in the transport document to costs which may be levied as A RESULT OF A DELAY IN UNLOADING THE GOODS or AFTER THE GOODS HAVE BEEN UNLOADED, E.G. COSTS COVERING LATE RETURN OF CONTAINERS, is not considered to be an indication of additional costs in this context”.

We wonder if costs in connection with A DELAY IN UNLOADING THE GOODS are actually to be deemed as “demurrage charges” and COSTS COVERING LATE RETURN OF CONTAINERS as “detention charges”?

If so, wouldn’t it be batter to use those terms in ISBP instead of describing these types of costs.

If DELAY IN UNLOADING and LATE RETURN OF CONTAINERS are not to be deemed as demurrage and detention – how can bankers recognize these charges in the B/L in order not to raise discrepancy?

Thanks in advance for all comments.
[edited 4/8/2011 1:45:08 PM]

[SladjanaSkakic]

No comments?

[DanielD]

Par. 113 or not, I tend to request IB to specify what sort of additional charges they have in mind.
Daniel