Dear all,
Assessment of the bill of lading can only be done based on what the document indicates. If transhipment actually takes place at Singapore, there is a different situation, but the bill of lading apparently does not show that.
As to Daniel's comments, I guess, the opinion of the Banking Commission still stands. I. e. where pre-carriage is indicated and transhipment takes place in the same port, there should be an on board notation for the ocean vessel. This despite the fact that the On Board Notation Paper does not give that specific example.
Kind regards,
Rob
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
-
RobReissner
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
It was indicated at the Banking Commission Meeting in Brussels this week that the 'on-board notation' paper will be going out for review by National Committees shortly.
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
NHD,
In the example you give it sounds as if the BL mentions only one vessel. If so, I can understand why it would not be refused. If I have not understood correctly, I cannot see what is the difference with the BL described in the original query.
Jeremy
In the example you give it sounds as if the BL mentions only one vessel. If so, I can understand why it would not be refused. If I have not understood correctly, I cannot see what is the difference with the BL described in the original query.
Jeremy
-
HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Jeremy,
Sorry if my example is not clear, but it’s the same as the original query, i.e. two vessels are indicated on the bill of lading: Sinar Bitung (container feeder) and Hyundai Commodore (mother vessel). The added information is that GOODS ARE PACKED IN CONTAINERS.
Shipping company argues that goods are actually loaded on board Sinar Bitung at Cat Lai port, Vietnam to be carried to Singapore for transhipment to the mother vessel - Hyundai Commodore . It is unreasonable to indicate shipped on board Hyundai Commodore at Cat Lai, Vietnam.
Note: LC states Cat Lai Port, Vietnam as port of loading.
Regards,
N.H.Duc
Sorry if my example is not clear, but it’s the same as the original query, i.e. two vessels are indicated on the bill of lading: Sinar Bitung (container feeder) and Hyundai Commodore (mother vessel). The added information is that GOODS ARE PACKED IN CONTAINERS.
Shipping company argues that goods are actually loaded on board Sinar Bitung at Cat Lai port, Vietnam to be carried to Singapore for transhipment to the mother vessel - Hyundai Commodore . It is unreasonable to indicate shipped on board Hyundai Commodore at Cat Lai, Vietnam.
Note: LC states Cat Lai Port, Vietnam as port of loading.
Regards,
N.H.Duc
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
NHD,
I can only say -as I am sure you appreciate- the fact that the goods are shipped in containers makes no difference under UCP600. Therefore, where you have a BL that:
1. apparently shows that the goods were loaded on board a named vessel (the first vessel) at the port of loading for (trans)shipment to another named vessel (the second vessel) within the same port of loading and:
2. does not state that the goods were loaded on the second vessel,
it must be treated in the same way irrespective of whether or not the goods are shipped in containers and the views of carriers regarding ‘fairness’.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 12/1/2009 4:18:26 PM]
I can only say -as I am sure you appreciate- the fact that the goods are shipped in containers makes no difference under UCP600. Therefore, where you have a BL that:
1. apparently shows that the goods were loaded on board a named vessel (the first vessel) at the port of loading for (trans)shipment to another named vessel (the second vessel) within the same port of loading and:
2. does not state that the goods were loaded on the second vessel,
it must be treated in the same way irrespective of whether or not the goods are shipped in containers and the views of carriers regarding ‘fairness’.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 12/1/2009 4:18:26 PM]