L/C shows:
port of shipment: Any canadian port
port of discharge:Dalian
B/L shows:
Intended port of discharge: Dalian
Place of delivery:Dalian
UCP600 do not say anything about "intended port of discharge".
Do you think this B/L is acceptable ?
Regards,
Shahed
Toronto
[edited 4/27/2009 8:15:26 PM]
Intended port of discharge
-
ThuHoangAnh_
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:28 pm
Intended port of discharge
Hi,
It is true that UCP 600 Article 20 does not say anything about “intended port of discharge”. Therefore, it’s difficult for the checker to determine whether or not such a described bill of lading is complying with UCP and LC terms and conditions.
Not sure but I think in this specific case the said bill of lading could be accepted as anyway it indicated the intended port of discharge and the place of delivery/final destination which is the same as the port of discharge stated in the LC, i.e., Dalian.
Though not quite appropriate and clear enough, my reasoning is based on my analysis of the provisions in UCP 500 Article 23 (a) (iii) (b) and UCP 600 Article 19 (a) (iii) (b).
The above is of my own view which needs support from other experts
Best regards,
N.H. Duc
[edited 4/28/2009 7:16:00 AM]
It is true that UCP 600 Article 20 does not say anything about “intended port of discharge”. Therefore, it’s difficult for the checker to determine whether or not such a described bill of lading is complying with UCP and LC terms and conditions.
Not sure but I think in this specific case the said bill of lading could be accepted as anyway it indicated the intended port of discharge and the place of delivery/final destination which is the same as the port of discharge stated in the LC, i.e., Dalian.
Though not quite appropriate and clear enough, my reasoning is based on my analysis of the provisions in UCP 500 Article 23 (a) (iii) (b) and UCP 600 Article 19 (a) (iii) (b).
The above is of my own view which needs support from other experts
Best regards,
N.H. Duc
[edited 4/28/2009 7:16:00 AM]
Intended port of discharge
When there is a place of receipt different from the port of loading we are told in Commentary (and the message is the same in subsequent opinions) to apply UCP 500 even if UCP500 art. a ii last paragraph has disappeared in 600. To be on the safe side I would do exactly the same with "intended port of discharge" i.e. I would apply 500 art. 20iii b.
so that the B/L would strictly comply with 600 a iii first paragraph.
Regards
Daniel
so that the B/L would strictly comply with 600 a iii first paragraph.
Regards
Daniel
Intended port of discharge
When I completed my review of UCP600 I wrote sub-Article 20(a)(iii) ‘also omits reference to an intended port of discharge (UCP500 sub-Article 23(a)(iii)). It is not known for certain why. Possibly it is because a port of discharge is always, in practice, intended, as -unlike the port of loading- discharge at the port named in the bill of lading is a future, and therefore, not definite event’. I am still none the wiser as to the position.