Sub-Article 43a
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Sub-Article 43a
In answer to Ben Coole, the reason for using all transport documents is that, although L/Cs are based on documents alone, there is an underlying event linked to these - namely despatch of goods. The transport document, regardless of whether or not a document of title, is the only document which independently asserts a date for such action. Determination of presentation of documents in good time naturally is linked to such an independent documentary validation of such action.
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Sub-Article 43a
From our banking experience we all know that non-negotiable documents might be
- Non-negotiable copies that are attached with the original set of the B/L
- Non-negotiable documents such as AWB, TCN and the like, therefore I see the importance of distinction between the two as important in this query. The distinction will give more focus on the query.
- Non-negotiable copies that are attached with the original set of the B/L
- Non-negotiable documents such as AWB, TCN and the like, therefore I see the importance of distinction between the two as important in this query. The distinction will give more focus on the query.
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Sub-Article 43a
I fully agree with Mr. Laurence. There is difference between documents that accompany transport documents (whether in negotiable form or otherwise) and those they don't.
Sub-Article 43a
EVIDENCE V. CONVENIENCE
Let us try to answer the original query once again in one shot after clarification of what is meant by “non negotiable transport document” from the enquirer as this term may have two meanings as already pointed out by Hatem and us.
Even though for a non-negotiable transport document such as the SWB (Sea Waybill), the consignee or holder needs not present any original or copy at all (and this is the very purpose of creation of SWB which is heavily promoted by the late Master Bernard S. Wheble and in the 1992 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of UK, the SWB is officially acknowledged along with “ship’s delivery order” to end confusions and disputes on the legal status of SWB and SDO) and can claim against his identity, nevertheless the original SWB is necessary to be presented to the issuing bank for evidence of shipment, as commented by Laurent, on which the payment in DC is based. Otherwise how can the issuing bank know whether the shipment has been performed according to the DC terms or not?
So for the enquirer, presentation of original SWB and the fact that the applicant may not need the SWB at all to claim the goods on arrival are two separate issues and cannot be mingled all together.
The original SWB is for the purpose of EVIDENCE OF SHIPMENT (for DC payment) and the other is for CONVINENCE IN CLAIMING GOODS (from the carrier).
We hope the mist is clear now.
By the way to use “non negotiable” to mean also “copy” can led to confusions as we have here but this is a banking practice. But banking practice can be changed if we all do the same together. We would try to promote this in our workshops in future, as we did in discouraging excessive details in DC, which only give unreal mental comfort as the beneficiary can create any document you need.
We are from http://www.tolee.com
Let us try to answer the original query once again in one shot after clarification of what is meant by “non negotiable transport document” from the enquirer as this term may have two meanings as already pointed out by Hatem and us.
Even though for a non-negotiable transport document such as the SWB (Sea Waybill), the consignee or holder needs not present any original or copy at all (and this is the very purpose of creation of SWB which is heavily promoted by the late Master Bernard S. Wheble and in the 1992 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of UK, the SWB is officially acknowledged along with “ship’s delivery order” to end confusions and disputes on the legal status of SWB and SDO) and can claim against his identity, nevertheless the original SWB is necessary to be presented to the issuing bank for evidence of shipment, as commented by Laurent, on which the payment in DC is based. Otherwise how can the issuing bank know whether the shipment has been performed according to the DC terms or not?
So for the enquirer, presentation of original SWB and the fact that the applicant may not need the SWB at all to claim the goods on arrival are two separate issues and cannot be mingled all together.
The original SWB is for the purpose of EVIDENCE OF SHIPMENT (for DC payment) and the other is for CONVINENCE IN CLAIMING GOODS (from the carrier).
We hope the mist is clear now.
By the way to use “non negotiable” to mean also “copy” can led to confusions as we have here but this is a banking practice. But banking practice can be changed if we all do the same together. We would try to promote this in our workshops in future, as we did in discouraging excessive details in DC, which only give unreal mental comfort as the beneficiary can create any document you need.
We are from http://www.tolee.com