The case No. 21 under the Case Studies on Documentary Credits under UCP 500 by Charles del Busto clearly mention that a freight forwarder-type document such as a Forwarder's Certificate of Receipt (FCR) is not a transport document and is therefore covered by art. 21 and not 23 of the UCP 500.
I do not personally like that much this choice since everybody knows which data's should appear on a FCR, however...............
Now I have been informed that the new UCP would have an article under the transport document articles refering to Courier, Post Receipt a.s.o.
Would'nt it have been wise to also include the FCR in this category ?
Roland
art. 21
-
RolandLeupi
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
art. 21
Dear Roland,
I guess that depend on how that would be done – what should the document show?.
One could discuss what is and what is not a transport document.
From my perspective it is very good that the UCP 600 makes it very clear what in fact are transport documents (19-25) when dealing with LCs; and I guess that the ISBP describes FCR’s just fine in paragraph 20.
There may still be issues to be confused about here, but I think that the situation has been improved.
Best regards
Kim
I guess that depend on how that would be done – what should the document show?.
One could discuss what is and what is not a transport document.
From my perspective it is very good that the UCP 600 makes it very clear what in fact are transport documents (19-25) when dealing with LCs; and I guess that the ISBP describes FCR’s just fine in paragraph 20.
There may still be issues to be confused about here, but I think that the situation has been improved.
Best regards
Kim
art. 21
Roland,
We in the UK were very keen to have an article covering forwarder's certificates of receipt.
However given the approach the drafting group appears to have taken -if a majority of NCs don't ask for it, it does not go in irrespective of its merits- this has not happened.
Jeremy
We in the UK were very keen to have an article covering forwarder's certificates of receipt.
However given the approach the drafting group appears to have taken -if a majority of NCs don't ask for it, it does not go in irrespective of its merits- this has not happened.
Jeremy
-
RolandLeupi
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
art. 21
Kim and Jeremy,
Thanks for your point of view.
Roland
Thanks for your point of view.
Roland
art. 21
Dear Roland,
From my knowledge a FCR only evidence that a freight forwarder take the goods into custody (from the exporter) in order to be loaded and/or hold at someone's disposal (applicant/issuing bank/third party).The FCR doesn't cover the voyage of the goods from loading place to unloading place but merely "transport" of goods from exporter/producer's warehouse/factory to the loading place.
So,I think unnecessary to issue a special art for FCR.
Art.21 of UCP and art.20 of ISBP are enough for this type of document.
Bogdan
From my knowledge a FCR only evidence that a freight forwarder take the goods into custody (from the exporter) in order to be loaded and/or hold at someone's disposal (applicant/issuing bank/third party).The FCR doesn't cover the voyage of the goods from loading place to unloading place but merely "transport" of goods from exporter/producer's warehouse/factory to the loading place.
So,I think unnecessary to issue a special art for FCR.
Art.21 of UCP and art.20 of ISBP are enough for this type of document.
Bogdan
art. 21
Bogdan,
I appreciate this is all fairly academic, but I cannot see what relevance the fact that ‘FCR only evidence that a freight forwarder take the goods into custody (from the exporter) …’ has to whether or not it an article should be included in the UCP.
Also, you say that a FCR evidences a freight forwarder taking the goods into custody (from the exporter) in order to be loaded and/or hold at someone else’s disposal, but unless the Credit expressly requires that the document state this I do not believe an FCR could be refused by reason of the absence of this information, except in respect of receipt of the goods on the basis of the last sentence of para 43 of ISBP. Also, if any of the ‘44’ fields of an MT700 are completed -where an FCR is stipulated- are they not non-documentary conditions?
This nonsense could have been avoided by including a detailed article in UCP600.
Overall, to me what is relevant is:
1. Is a document commonly called for?
2. Would Credit issuing and document examination be facilitated by a separate, detailed article?
My opinion is the answer is ‘yes’ to both questions in the case of the FCR. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree.
Regards, Jeremy
I appreciate this is all fairly academic, but I cannot see what relevance the fact that ‘FCR only evidence that a freight forwarder take the goods into custody (from the exporter) …’ has to whether or not it an article should be included in the UCP.
Also, you say that a FCR evidences a freight forwarder taking the goods into custody (from the exporter) in order to be loaded and/or hold at someone else’s disposal, but unless the Credit expressly requires that the document state this I do not believe an FCR could be refused by reason of the absence of this information, except in respect of receipt of the goods on the basis of the last sentence of para 43 of ISBP. Also, if any of the ‘44’ fields of an MT700 are completed -where an FCR is stipulated- are they not non-documentary conditions?
This nonsense could have been avoided by including a detailed article in UCP600.
Overall, to me what is relevant is:
1. Is a document commonly called for?
2. Would Credit issuing and document examination be facilitated by a separate, detailed article?
My opinion is the answer is ‘yes’ to both questions in the case of the FCR. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree.
Regards, Jeremy
-
RolandLeupi
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
art. 21
An article reguarding the FCR would have been the best solution. But since it does not seems that NC are prepared to do so by including the FCR under the new future art in 600 in connection with postal receipt, courier receipt, a.s.o. It would at lease have clarify something. Furthermore, the new article refers to receipt issued by post, courier and so on. Why not include also the FCR which is also a receipt ?
Roland
Roland