Certificate from shipping company

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:00 am

Dear all,

An LC includes the following requirement:

Quote
Certificate from shipping company or their agent(s) confirming that the carrying vessel (including vessel name) holds an international safety management certificate (ISM code)
Unquote

Shipment from Aarhus is required

The bill of lading presented shows the following:

a) Shipped on board MV “Jilan” at Aarhus on xx.xx.2007
(Jilan is mentioned in the “place of receipt” field)

b) Port of loading: Antwerp – vessel “Maria Elena”
(B/L does not indicate that goods are in fact on board in Antwerp – and it is on a “Received for shipment” form)

c) Port of discharge: Bahrain

The question is which vessel(s) should be mentioned on the “Certificate from shipping company”?

1) Jilan – because it is the “on board port” as required by the LC.

2) Maria Elena because that one cover the “main” part of the voyage

3) Both because both vessels are mentioned on the B/L

… and does it make a difference if the goods was also clearly on board Maria Elena in Antwerp?

Thanks in advance

Kim

[edited 12/12/2007 11:46:50 AM]

Yahya · Post by **Yahya** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:00 am

Dear Kim,
I must say that your post is quite difficult to respond.
It clearly seems by stating this condition the issuing bank intends this requirement to cover all the journey of the goods but due to poor writing of the condition in the l/c it may face some problems.
I mean if the credit stated that " ......... In case the Bill of Lading evidences transhipment of goods involving a pre-carriage and an ocean vessel, this certificate must confirm compliance for all the vessels"You wouldn't have any problems for doc checking.
My view , on the basis of deficiency of the condition, it only applies one vessel name i.e. a certificate evidencing the name of vessel which goods loaded on board at port of loading stated in the credit would be acceptable even if it shows additional vessel names for pre-carriage to the port of loading or further transportation of goods to the port of discharge stated in the credit.

Regards
Yahya

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:00 am

Kim,

In my opinion, both.
Because it is not just a "Nice to Have" issue but it can have practical consequences
For example in the General Conditions of Marine Insurance on Goods in Switzerland, ships as well as as shipping companies are to be certified in accordance with ISM code.
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:00 am

Kim,

My 'snap' judgement based on the credit terms alone is both vessels as they both (in my shipping non-expert's view) appear to be 'carrying vessels'.

Regards, Jeremy
[edited 12/13/2007 2:15:17 PM]

RsSujatha · Post by **RsSujatha** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:00 am

Both are Carrying Vessels, Hence both Vessels are to be Certified by the Shipping Co as ISM Certified to comply with L/C and

w.r.t. Question 2, It is incorrect if it shows goods loaded on board at Antwerp also, because Antwerp is not one of the Ports of Loading called for in L/C