I would like to know what the difference between 'through bills of lading' and 'combined transport bills of lading'.
If LC calls for through bills of lading, may we accept the transport documents presented with the title
"marine bills of lading" or "combined bills of lading" and which article should I refer to,
art. 23 or 26.
Through Bill of Lading
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Through Bill of Lading
A through B/L means that only one B/L covers the entire journey.
A combined transport B/L indicates that more than one mode of transport may be used.
If the L/C simply calls for a through B/L, either a marine or combined transport B/L will be acceptable, but there may be indications elsewhere in the L/C to limit such choice. For example, if the destination is inland, a marine B/L cannot cover it.
A combined transport B/L indicates that more than one mode of transport may be used.
If the L/C simply calls for a through B/L, either a marine or combined transport B/L will be acceptable, but there may be indications elsewhere in the L/C to limit such choice. For example, if the destination is inland, a marine B/L cannot cover it.
Through Bill of Lading
LET US PRAY FOR OUR DEAR FRIEND MR. DAN TAYLOR AND WISH HIM GOOD LUCK TO SURVIVE THE DISASTERS IN WTC
Before we start our work in the DC Pro, we urge members of the DC Pro to pray for our dear friend Mr. Dan Taylor, the Vice Chairman of the ICC Banking Commission, and the Chairman of IFSA USA, One World Trade Center, Suite 2269 and wish him good luck and survive from the collapse of the Twin Towers this morning.
We also suggest the DC Pro to check for the safety of Mr. Taylor and post this news in the DC Pro news column so that those who know him may have first hand information about Mr. Taylor who has done so much for the banking community.
TBL AND MTBL CONFUSING
From our experience in dealing with disputes over all sorts of Bs/L, it is difficult for us to give clear and precise definitions on through B/L (TBL) and multimdoal transport B/L ( MTBL) due to abuse in the use of these transport documents in the market place, although we do have one comparision chart on these two transport documents in our website.
LLOYD'S DEFINITION OF TBL
.
From our private library, it is stated in the Marine Encyclopaedic Dictionary published by Lloyd's of London as follows:
"THROUGH BILL OF LADING This Bill of Lading is issued if the shipper arranges with a single carrier for goods to be consigned onward to an INLAND DESTINATION from the discharge port. The owner of the goods assumes the additional risk during transhipment, when they will be treated as in transit and may be placed in a Bonded Warehosue".
So a TBL may invovle an inland destination as well, contrary to what Laurant comments early here. That means a TBL may also involve two modes of transport. Then members would ask: "What is the difference between a TBL and a MTBL?"
We cannot answer this question, from a practical point of view.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Having said that, from a purely theoretical point of view, a non-multimodal transport or marine BL should not cover any inland destination, particulary that the journal/voyage to that inland point is a considerably long one. However, if an inland point is nevertheless covered, the inland portion should be at least performed by inland waterways transport, such as by barges and the like.
APPLICABLE LAW PERSPECTIVES
From an applicable law point of view, a non-multimodal transport or marine BL is only subject to maritime legislations and conventions, such as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGCA), Hague, Hague/Visby or Hamburg Rules that do not deal with or have jurisdiction on the land portion.
However, in reality, we do find a marine BL sometimes also covering an inland destination, which may not be accessible by inland waterways.
THE MORE WE KNOW, THE MORE WE ARE GETTING SCARED
The more we know about international transport, insurance and the related rules and conventions, the more we are getting scared.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/12/01 4:09:39 PM]
Before we start our work in the DC Pro, we urge members of the DC Pro to pray for our dear friend Mr. Dan Taylor, the Vice Chairman of the ICC Banking Commission, and the Chairman of IFSA USA, One World Trade Center, Suite 2269 and wish him good luck and survive from the collapse of the Twin Towers this morning.
We also suggest the DC Pro to check for the safety of Mr. Taylor and post this news in the DC Pro news column so that those who know him may have first hand information about Mr. Taylor who has done so much for the banking community.
TBL AND MTBL CONFUSING
From our experience in dealing with disputes over all sorts of Bs/L, it is difficult for us to give clear and precise definitions on through B/L (TBL) and multimdoal transport B/L ( MTBL) due to abuse in the use of these transport documents in the market place, although we do have one comparision chart on these two transport documents in our website.
LLOYD'S DEFINITION OF TBL
.
From our private library, it is stated in the Marine Encyclopaedic Dictionary published by Lloyd's of London as follows:
"THROUGH BILL OF LADING This Bill of Lading is issued if the shipper arranges with a single carrier for goods to be consigned onward to an INLAND DESTINATION from the discharge port. The owner of the goods assumes the additional risk during transhipment, when they will be treated as in transit and may be placed in a Bonded Warehosue".
So a TBL may invovle an inland destination as well, contrary to what Laurant comments early here. That means a TBL may also involve two modes of transport. Then members would ask: "What is the difference between a TBL and a MTBL?"
We cannot answer this question, from a practical point of view.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Having said that, from a purely theoretical point of view, a non-multimodal transport or marine BL should not cover any inland destination, particulary that the journal/voyage to that inland point is a considerably long one. However, if an inland point is nevertheless covered, the inland portion should be at least performed by inland waterways transport, such as by barges and the like.
APPLICABLE LAW PERSPECTIVES
From an applicable law point of view, a non-multimodal transport or marine BL is only subject to maritime legislations and conventions, such as the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGCA), Hague, Hague/Visby or Hamburg Rules that do not deal with or have jurisdiction on the land portion.
However, in reality, we do find a marine BL sometimes also covering an inland destination, which may not be accessible by inland waterways.
THE MORE WE KNOW, THE MORE WE ARE GETTING SCARED
The more we know about international transport, insurance and the related rules and conventions, the more we are getting scared.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/12/01 4:09:39 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Through Bill of Lading
My thanks to T.O. Lee for giving fuller definitions than I have. However, his definitions are not contrary to mine. My understanding of TBLs are those covering the entire journey, whether or not this involves transit by any combination of land, sea or air. This may or may not involve more than one mode of transport. In the L/C world, transhipment is confined to meaning that more than one mode of transport is used. In the real world, transhipment involves movement of goods between different means of transport.
Through Bill of Lading
"TRANSHIPMENT" SHOULD ONLY HAVE ONE INTERPRETATION AND THAT SHOULD BE FROM THE TRANSPORT INDUSTRY
We disagree that the term "transhipment" may have different interpretations in different professions as commented by Laurence. In fact it should have one and the same interpretation across industries. Otherwise this would ceate confusions and disputes. We cannot communicate effectively if different industries use different interpretations for the same term. Then how can bankers determine discrepancy related to "transhipment" on the face of B/L?
Laurence, please do not forget that "transhipment" (or "transshipment") is a transport term. So its interpretation should be based on that from the transport industry.
LLOYD'S DEFINITION OF "TRANSHIPMENT"
From our private library, we find the definition of "transhipment" in the Marine Encyclopaedic Dictionary by Lloyd's of London as follows:
"TRANSHIP OR TRANSHIPMENT
To move, movement of, a cargo or consignment from one ship to another, or from one mode of transport to another, either direct or via an intermediate quay, warehouse, terminal depot, etc. for onward carriage".
MODES AND MEANS OF TRANSPORT
By the way, "modes of transport" means air, sea or surface (more correct than "land" as we have commented previously) transport. And "means of transport" means ships, airplanes or land crafts such as trucks & trains etc.
UCP 500 DEFINITON OF TRANSHIPMENT IS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT ARTICLES
In the UCP 500, under sub Articles 23 (b), 24 (b) & 27 (b), transhipment may involve only ONE MODE of transport whereas under sub Article 28 (c), transhipment may involve MORE THAN ONE MODE of transport. So, transhipment in the UCP may involve ONE OR MORE THAN ONE MODE(S) of transport, not "only confined to more than one mode of transport" as Laurence commented previously.
So, Laurence, we have noted that your last second sentence is not matching sub Articles 23 (b), 24 (b) and 27 (b). And your last sentence is not matching the Lloyd's definition.
By the way, in the invoice and sales/purchase contract, we should use the term "goods" but in the B/L, a transport document, we should use the term "cargo" to be precise. That is the doctrine of "Use right term in the right document" which we are trying hard to promote in our DC and transport workshops.
http;//www.tolee.com
[edited 9/15/01 12:56:53 AM]
We disagree that the term "transhipment" may have different interpretations in different professions as commented by Laurence. In fact it should have one and the same interpretation across industries. Otherwise this would ceate confusions and disputes. We cannot communicate effectively if different industries use different interpretations for the same term. Then how can bankers determine discrepancy related to "transhipment" on the face of B/L?
Laurence, please do not forget that "transhipment" (or "transshipment") is a transport term. So its interpretation should be based on that from the transport industry.
LLOYD'S DEFINITION OF "TRANSHIPMENT"
From our private library, we find the definition of "transhipment" in the Marine Encyclopaedic Dictionary by Lloyd's of London as follows:
"TRANSHIP OR TRANSHIPMENT
To move, movement of, a cargo or consignment from one ship to another, or from one mode of transport to another, either direct or via an intermediate quay, warehouse, terminal depot, etc. for onward carriage".
MODES AND MEANS OF TRANSPORT
By the way, "modes of transport" means air, sea or surface (more correct than "land" as we have commented previously) transport. And "means of transport" means ships, airplanes or land crafts such as trucks & trains etc.
UCP 500 DEFINITON OF TRANSHIPMENT IS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT ARTICLES
In the UCP 500, under sub Articles 23 (b), 24 (b) & 27 (b), transhipment may involve only ONE MODE of transport whereas under sub Article 28 (c), transhipment may involve MORE THAN ONE MODE of transport. So, transhipment in the UCP may involve ONE OR MORE THAN ONE MODE(S) of transport, not "only confined to more than one mode of transport" as Laurence commented previously.
So, Laurence, we have noted that your last second sentence is not matching sub Articles 23 (b), 24 (b) and 27 (b). And your last sentence is not matching the Lloyd's definition.
By the way, in the invoice and sales/purchase contract, we should use the term "goods" but in the B/L, a transport document, we should use the term "cargo" to be precise. That is the doctrine of "Use right term in the right document" which we are trying hard to promote in our DC and transport workshops.
http;//www.tolee.com
[edited 9/15/01 12:56:53 AM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Through Bill of Lading
My apologies to all for describing my last posting in haste without making reference to the Article which I had in mind. This is, of course, Article 28 c where the definition of transhipment is at odds with the other articles described by T. O. Lee and with the Lloyds definition with which I agree.
I agree with T.O. Lee that there should be one definition which should come from the transport industry. However, I cannot find the word "may" as used by T.O. in reference to this article. In fact this article states that "transhipment means unloading and reloading from one means of conveyance to another means of conveyance, IN DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORT" (capitals added)
I agree with T.O. Lee that there should be one definition which should come from the transport industry. However, I cannot find the word "may" as used by T.O. in reference to this article. In fact this article states that "transhipment means unloading and reloading from one means of conveyance to another means of conveyance, IN DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORT" (capitals added)
Through Bill of Lading
Dear Laurence,
CAREFUL CHOICE OF WORDS
By using the word MAY in our interpretation of transhipment under the UCP Articles (where you do not find such a word MAY in these Articles), we intend to mean that transhipment MAY involve one mode only and MAY also involve more than one mode, all depending on which Article one is referring to. I cannnot say "MUST, SHALL OR SHOULD". Otherwise I MAY have misled other members. "MAY" means a choice.
We hope it is now clear to you of our real intent. We are commenting, not quoting the Articles. You MAY agree and you MAY not agree with us.
ONE MODE MAY ALSO BE DEEMED AS MULTI MODES
To go more in-depth on your query, in the UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport, ICC Publication No. 481, one mode MAY also be considered as multi-modes or multimodal transport. The sub Article 28 (c) is written by bankers who MAY not be aware of such an interpretation, also from ICC, but this time from ICC Commission on Transport, which you have already agreed is a more authoritative interpretation than the ICC Banking Commission in transport terms.
Just for argument sake, if the goods are packed in small boxes, not containerised, are unloaded box by box from one truck of licence plate No. 1234 and re-loaded box by box onto another truck of licence plate 5678 powered by a different diesel engine, SHOULD this be consdiered as transhipment under sub Article 28 (c)?
According to Laurence's interpretation of sub Article 28 (c), the answer should be NO since not two modes of transport are involved. But the answer should be Yes. Is your interpretation reasonable and does it meet the simple common sense rule as promoted by the late Master Bernard S. Wheble?
In examination of documents, we should not rely too heavily on literal interpretations. That is why we say MAY when we comment on sub Article 28 (c).
We would recommend some changes in the future version of the UCP 500 in this regards.
Having said that, of course, if the same container road haulage trailer is booked up to another pulling truck engine OR the same railway cargo carriage is hooked up to another rail engine, all these are not considered as transhipment by sub Article 28 (c) since they are all belonging to the same means of conveyance. There are lots of such ICC opinions in the DC Pro search pool.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/12/01 10:44:05 PM]
CAREFUL CHOICE OF WORDS
By using the word MAY in our interpretation of transhipment under the UCP Articles (where you do not find such a word MAY in these Articles), we intend to mean that transhipment MAY involve one mode only and MAY also involve more than one mode, all depending on which Article one is referring to. I cannnot say "MUST, SHALL OR SHOULD". Otherwise I MAY have misled other members. "MAY" means a choice.
We hope it is now clear to you of our real intent. We are commenting, not quoting the Articles. You MAY agree and you MAY not agree with us.
ONE MODE MAY ALSO BE DEEMED AS MULTI MODES
To go more in-depth on your query, in the UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport, ICC Publication No. 481, one mode MAY also be considered as multi-modes or multimodal transport. The sub Article 28 (c) is written by bankers who MAY not be aware of such an interpretation, also from ICC, but this time from ICC Commission on Transport, which you have already agreed is a more authoritative interpretation than the ICC Banking Commission in transport terms.
Just for argument sake, if the goods are packed in small boxes, not containerised, are unloaded box by box from one truck of licence plate No. 1234 and re-loaded box by box onto another truck of licence plate 5678 powered by a different diesel engine, SHOULD this be consdiered as transhipment under sub Article 28 (c)?
According to Laurence's interpretation of sub Article 28 (c), the answer should be NO since not two modes of transport are involved. But the answer should be Yes. Is your interpretation reasonable and does it meet the simple common sense rule as promoted by the late Master Bernard S. Wheble?
In examination of documents, we should not rely too heavily on literal interpretations. That is why we say MAY when we comment on sub Article 28 (c).
We would recommend some changes in the future version of the UCP 500 in this regards.
Having said that, of course, if the same container road haulage trailer is booked up to another pulling truck engine OR the same railway cargo carriage is hooked up to another rail engine, all these are not considered as transhipment by sub Article 28 (c) since they are all belonging to the same means of conveyance. There are lots of such ICC opinions in the DC Pro search pool.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 9/12/01 10:44:05 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Through Bill of Lading
T. O.
I think that we are of one mind when we talk about what transhipment SHOULD mean. Unfortunately, the language used in 28c is quite different from other references to transhipment in UCP. I too prefer the common sense approach, but this may assume a commonality of purpose among disparate parties to the L/C which may not be present. Common sense should have dictated that the wording in 28c be similar to other references to transhipment in UCP, but common sense did not prevail.
If you consider Jeremy's comments on discrepant documents, I am sure that he considers his actions to be a reflection of common sense, whereas you and I do not.
Your reference to moving goods from one truck to another would be considered to be transhipment by any reasonable person, but I consider the wording in 28c requiring different modes of transport to be at odds with this.
I think that we are of one mind when we talk about what transhipment SHOULD mean. Unfortunately, the language used in 28c is quite different from other references to transhipment in UCP. I too prefer the common sense approach, but this may assume a commonality of purpose among disparate parties to the L/C which may not be present. Common sense should have dictated that the wording in 28c be similar to other references to transhipment in UCP, but common sense did not prevail.
If you consider Jeremy's comments on discrepant documents, I am sure that he considers his actions to be a reflection of common sense, whereas you and I do not.
Your reference to moving goods from one truck to another would be considered to be transhipment by any reasonable person, but I consider the wording in 28c requiring different modes of transport to be at odds with this.