A new genus of B/L clauses ?

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:00 am

Dear Kim,

This clause was separately typed on the front of the B/L under the Description heading.
I don't think that there is a true comparison with the issue of goods loaded on deck or not. Loading on deck deals with the stowage of the goods, whether preferential or not. There is no cost difference between loading on deck or not.
There is an unlimited cost difference depending on whether or not the clause I cited is used.
If you want to make a comparison with something else try this :
You normally expect to pay $1000 for a holiday for two people. You are offered an identical holiday for $800, but with a clause certifying that you agree to pay an additional unlimited charge at the airport of departure. You must pay the $800 immediately which is not refundable and the additional charge will not be advised to you until you arrive at the airport to board your flight. Would you be foolish enough to book this holiday ?

Article 33 d has no bearing on this clause because this article refers to loading, unloading and similar operations. The clause makes no reference to these type of operations, and is not limited to these operations, as article 33 d is.

Laurence
[edited 10/16/2004 9:10:54 PM]

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:00 am

Dear Laurence

Thanks a lot – not least for your very illustrative example

Much appreciated.

I am not saying, that I like the clause – nor that I (as a shipper) would accept it. What I am trying to do, is to evaluate whether or not it is ground for a formal and valid refusal under UCP 500.

As I have said, I can see your point – and trust me; I do not like that clause either. However I just do not think, that the reasons for rejection that you mention would hold under the UCP 500. I may be wrong, and I am out of arguments here.

Somehow it would be fun (read: interesting) to ask for an opinion of the ICC Banking Commission.

Best regards
Kim

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:00 am

Dear Kim,

I agree that I cannot find a reason to reject under the UCP, but there is a second category by which one can reject documents - that it is contrary to the text of the LC. In this case, in my opinion, this clause is contrary to the CFR requirement of the LC.

Laurence
p.s. I presume you would not book that holiday !

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:00 am

Dear Laurence

Apologize for late reply. Have been “out” of DC-Pro for a week or so

Anyway, just for the sake of clarification.

When I talk of “refusal under UCP 500”, it is a lazy way of referring to UCP 500 article 13A; saying that compliance is determined by:

1) the terms of the credit
2) the articles of UCP 500
3) documents inconsistent with one another

In your previous posting you refer to 1 and 3 … that does however not change my view on things

Best regards
Kim

PS. I am still considering your holiday offer, but I guess that I would need a bit more information … such as destination

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:00 am

Dear Kim,

I omitted to say that to make the holiday offer more in line with the clause on the B/L, you would also have to sign over the deeds to your house as collateral for the unspecified payment at the airport of departure. If you think that this is too much, compare the house value with the average value of a LC.
The destination I leave to your individual choice !

Laurence

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:00 am

I suspect that this clause may have been a one-off. The shipping line involved is small and it may have been the result of an individual overstepping the mark.

Has anybody seen other similar clauses ?

Laurence

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:00 am

Dear all,

B/L states: "Merchant hereby agrees to pay on demand to the carriers/agent at discharge port, stamp duty on delivery orders an administrative charges thereon issued by vessels agents for cargo stored and delivered in maharastra, India.
Merchant furtehr agrees to furnish copy of customs cleared bill of entry to the vessels agents ascertaining value of for payment of stamp duty"
There is a background about stamp duty going to the Mumbai high court "justifying" this statement.
How would you react?
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:00 am

Daniel,

Sorry, I'm lost. If you are asking if a BL containing this provision is acceptable under UCP600, I would say it is covered by 20(a)(v).

Jeremy

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:00 am

Jeremy,

I agree this is not a discrepancy technically speaking under 600. But I you reread the previous postings, these clauses seem to make bankers (except you maybe) uncomfortable. That is why I wrote "how would you react". I could add after five years or so.
Regards
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:00 am

Indeed, except me, Daniel; my concerns relate purely to the compliance or otherwise of documents and do not go beyond that.