Dear DC-PRO forum participants,
The article 27 says:
(iii) where the Credit calls for an actual date of dispatch, indicates a specific notation of such date, the date of dispatch so indicated on the air transport document will be deemed to be the date of shipment.
In all other cases, the date of issuance of the air transport document will be deemed to be the date of shipment,
So the literal interpretation of this provision would be that only if the L/C calls for an actual date of dispatch, the actual date of dispatch indicated by a specific notation will be taken as the date of shipment.
As the “ In all other cases, the date of issuance of the air transport document will be deemed to be the date of shipment” part of the article seems to say, if the L/C does not call for an actual date of dispatch, the specific notation of the actual date of dispatch on AWB would not make any difference as the date of issuance of AWB will be deemed to be the date of shipment.
Would you follow this interpretation or would you, in the light of the issue re. “two dates shipped B/L" think that “in all other cases” do not include the case when the L/C does not call for an actual date of dispatch but nevertheless the air transport document shows it?
I know that you are aware of this matter most likely since UCP 500 has been introduced, I am just wondering what the views are nowdays and whether you have experienced any “troubles” re. this.
Thank you for your comments.
Pavel Andrle
Article 27 - date of shipment
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Article 27 - date of shipment
Firstly I would like to state that I have not experienced any trouble so far on the issue.
Secondly, I have looked at few AWB forms and have found out that normally an AWB will not show an actual dispatch date. Among other information, it shows flight date & date of its issuance. Article 27 a (iii) ascertains the AWB date as the shipment date and excludes the flight date to be considered.
According to my understanding, the article doesn't in any way, explicitily or implicitly, excludes the actual date of dispatch from being considered as the date of shipment. It merely states that if a letter of credit calls for such date, the AWB should show the date even if the norm is not to show the actual dispatch date on the AWB.
Therefore, in letters of credit transactions, according to my interpretation and understanding of article 27 a (iii), if an actual date of dispatch is shown on an AWB whether that is stated to comply with an LC terms and conditions or otherwise, it should be considered as the shipment date. The "in all other cases" expression doesn't, according to my understanding, encompass the an actual date of dispatch.
regards
Abdulkader
[edited 3/1/02 9:50:41 AM]
Secondly, I have looked at few AWB forms and have found out that normally an AWB will not show an actual dispatch date. Among other information, it shows flight date & date of its issuance. Article 27 a (iii) ascertains the AWB date as the shipment date and excludes the flight date to be considered.
According to my understanding, the article doesn't in any way, explicitily or implicitly, excludes the actual date of dispatch from being considered as the date of shipment. It merely states that if a letter of credit calls for such date, the AWB should show the date even if the norm is not to show the actual dispatch date on the AWB.
Therefore, in letters of credit transactions, according to my interpretation and understanding of article 27 a (iii), if an actual date of dispatch is shown on an AWB whether that is stated to comply with an LC terms and conditions or otherwise, it should be considered as the shipment date. The "in all other cases" expression doesn't, according to my understanding, encompass the an actual date of dispatch.
regards
Abdulkader
[edited 3/1/02 9:50:41 AM]
Article 27 - date of shipment
Pavel,
Without responsibility/liability:
1. We apply this sub-Article literally as it is written, i.e. if the credit does not stipulate (what is widely called) a ‘flight stamp’ we take the date of issue as being the date of despatch, even if there is a flight stamp with a different (usually later) date. To us, it is quite clear that “the Credit call[ing] for an actual date of despatch” is a “condition precedent” to taking the date of despatch evidenced by the flight stamp as the date of despatch for the purposes of the credit. (We believe the words "in all other cases" must refer to where the credit does not call for an actual date of despatch.)
2. The only ‘trouble’ we have had is with beneficiaries objecting to our approach, when it has caused the presentation to fall foul of the post-despatch presentation period limit (Article 43). Suffice it to say, we have stood our ground.
Jeremy
[edited 3/1/02 11:39:26 AM]
Without responsibility/liability:
1. We apply this sub-Article literally as it is written, i.e. if the credit does not stipulate (what is widely called) a ‘flight stamp’ we take the date of issue as being the date of despatch, even if there is a flight stamp with a different (usually later) date. To us, it is quite clear that “the Credit call[ing] for an actual date of despatch” is a “condition precedent” to taking the date of despatch evidenced by the flight stamp as the date of despatch for the purposes of the credit. (We believe the words "in all other cases" must refer to where the credit does not call for an actual date of despatch.)
2. The only ‘trouble’ we have had is with beneficiaries objecting to our approach, when it has caused the presentation to fall foul of the post-despatch presentation period limit (Article 43). Suffice it to say, we have stood our ground.
Jeremy
[edited 3/1/02 11:39:26 AM]
Article 27 - date of shipment
PRINCIPLE OF AIRFREIGHT
Parties should know what they are doing when AWB is used in transport of more expensive or urgent cargoes. The main purpose is to have the FASTEST delivery possible against payment of a higher freight than other modes of transport.
FLEXIBILITY IS THE NAME OF THE GAME
Hence it is stupid, if not unusual, to specify a certain flight date and flight number on the DC. Airfreight works on the principle of flexibility. Certain air cargoes originally scheduled to be carried on a cargo plane may be carried by a passenger plane instead, if there is spare capacity to take that cargo. In this way the cargo may be despatched faster than originally scheduled. And this would also save operating costs for the air carriers, due to full utilisation of the spare cargo space.
If the DC insists on a certain flight number and date, then the carrier has no choice but to execute accordingly, even if a 747 passenger flight has the spare cargo capacity to take that cargo on an earlier date or time.
NAMING FLIGHT DATE AND NUMBER IN DC IS NOT ENCOURAGED
As the airfreight market is highly competitive, in order to keep the airfreight down and yet has a profit, the air carriers must be allowed to work on flexibility. So we discourage putting flight number and date in a DC. Sometime this may not work to the advantage of the parties.
What about if the indicated flight has to be cancelled due to engine troubles?
DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME
We would advise those clients or customers who insist on naming flight number and date in the AWB (of course for a good reason) to put it in this way:
“Flight No. CX828 on 8 March 2002 or any flight despatching earlier than this”
Does this make sense?
www.tolee.com
[edited 3/1/02 11:11:32 PM]
Parties should know what they are doing when AWB is used in transport of more expensive or urgent cargoes. The main purpose is to have the FASTEST delivery possible against payment of a higher freight than other modes of transport.
FLEXIBILITY IS THE NAME OF THE GAME
Hence it is stupid, if not unusual, to specify a certain flight date and flight number on the DC. Airfreight works on the principle of flexibility. Certain air cargoes originally scheduled to be carried on a cargo plane may be carried by a passenger plane instead, if there is spare capacity to take that cargo. In this way the cargo may be despatched faster than originally scheduled. And this would also save operating costs for the air carriers, due to full utilisation of the spare cargo space.
If the DC insists on a certain flight number and date, then the carrier has no choice but to execute accordingly, even if a 747 passenger flight has the spare cargo capacity to take that cargo on an earlier date or time.
NAMING FLIGHT DATE AND NUMBER IN DC IS NOT ENCOURAGED
As the airfreight market is highly competitive, in order to keep the airfreight down and yet has a profit, the air carriers must be allowed to work on flexibility. So we discourage putting flight number and date in a DC. Sometime this may not work to the advantage of the parties.
What about if the indicated flight has to be cancelled due to engine troubles?
DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME
We would advise those clients or customers who insist on naming flight number and date in the AWB (of course for a good reason) to put it in this way:
“Flight No. CX828 on 8 March 2002 or any flight despatching earlier than this”
Does this make sense?
www.tolee.com
[edited 3/1/02 11:11:32 PM]
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Article 27 - date of shipment
Although I'm not much aware how the air cargo industry works, I believe the ACTUAL DATE OF DISPATCH notation will be indicated on the air waybill only after the goods have been shipped on board the aircraft and probably the aircraft actually took-off to its destination. THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE A CERTAIN DATE. The word "ACTUAL" gives weight to this notion.
The draw back of this process is that it will delay the processing / issuance of the document (AWB). In normal circumstances,the actual date of dispatch is after the issuance date of the AWB though there could be exceptions.
The FILIGHT NUMBER or FLIGHT DATE normally stated in the AWB certainly do not always denote an actual date of dispatch since as T.O.Lee stated there could be change in flight schedule. These are prescheduled dates and can't always be the actual dispatch dates or actual flight numbers and dates. If the letter of credit specifies a flight number and date, then such flight number and date must be mentioned on the AWB. Since the prescheduled flight number and date may not always be the actual flight number and date on the actual date of dispatch of goods, I agree with T.O. Lee such request in the credit should be discouraged.
Finally, I would like to say that the answer to the query is not as easy as I thought and I can see a crack in my understanding of the article because of the following excerpt from an article by Bernard S. Wheble in the "DC Insight" Volume 1 No 1 Winter 1995 (Bernard S. Wheble on the reasoning behind the UCP Transport Articles.):
"A point of possible concern has since been raised in connection with air freight and the commercial effect of sub - Article 27(a)(iii ), which allows for different dates of shipment according to whether or not the credit calls for an actual date of dispatch. This might well be a topic for discussion in a future issue of Documentary Credits Insight."
In addition, after reading the comments of other participants and revisiting UCP 500 & 400 compared plus reading other articles on the subject, it is evident that the expression "in all other cases" in article 27a(iii) is intended to encompass the "an actual dispatch date" i.e. where the credit does not call for an actual dispatch date.
regards
Abdulkader
[edited 3/1/02 5:38:37 PM]
[edited 3/2/02 1:53:46 AM]
The draw back of this process is that it will delay the processing / issuance of the document (AWB). In normal circumstances,the actual date of dispatch is after the issuance date of the AWB though there could be exceptions.
The FILIGHT NUMBER or FLIGHT DATE normally stated in the AWB certainly do not always denote an actual date of dispatch since as T.O.Lee stated there could be change in flight schedule. These are prescheduled dates and can't always be the actual dispatch dates or actual flight numbers and dates. If the letter of credit specifies a flight number and date, then such flight number and date must be mentioned on the AWB. Since the prescheduled flight number and date may not always be the actual flight number and date on the actual date of dispatch of goods, I agree with T.O. Lee such request in the credit should be discouraged.
Finally, I would like to say that the answer to the query is not as easy as I thought and I can see a crack in my understanding of the article because of the following excerpt from an article by Bernard S. Wheble in the "DC Insight" Volume 1 No 1 Winter 1995 (Bernard S. Wheble on the reasoning behind the UCP Transport Articles.):
"A point of possible concern has since been raised in connection with air freight and the commercial effect of sub - Article 27(a)(iii ), which allows for different dates of shipment according to whether or not the credit calls for an actual date of dispatch. This might well be a topic for discussion in a future issue of Documentary Credits Insight."
In addition, after reading the comments of other participants and revisiting UCP 500 & 400 compared plus reading other articles on the subject, it is evident that the expression "in all other cases" in article 27a(iii) is intended to encompass the "an actual dispatch date" i.e. where the credit does not call for an actual dispatch date.
regards
Abdulkader
[edited 3/1/02 5:38:37 PM]
[edited 3/2/02 1:53:46 AM]
-
PGauntlett
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
Article 27 - date of shipment
If the l/c is silent the main purpose of an AWB is to evidence that 'goods have been accepted for carriage'. Any dispatch notifications are superfluous
-
HeinzHertl
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Article 27 - date of shipment
Dear Pavel and all other colleagues
You are quite right. For me sub-article 27(a)(iii) says that principally the date of issuance will be deemed to be the date of shipment whether there is an other date written in the box "flight/date" or not and whether there is an actual flight date which nobody asked for indicated or not. Only in case an actual flight date is required in the credit then this date which has to be made in form of a specfic notation will be considered the shipment date. This is also in line with what the working group on International Standard Banking Practice" has written in its draft doc 951rev lines 1147-1157.
Regards
Heinz Hertl
You are quite right. For me sub-article 27(a)(iii) says that principally the date of issuance will be deemed to be the date of shipment whether there is an other date written in the box "flight/date" or not and whether there is an actual flight date which nobody asked for indicated or not. Only in case an actual flight date is required in the credit then this date which has to be made in form of a specfic notation will be considered the shipment date. This is also in line with what the working group on International Standard Banking Practice" has written in its draft doc 951rev lines 1147-1157.
Regards
Heinz Hertl
Article 27 - date of shipment
Welcome my admirable friend Heinz to post his first opinion in 2002 as a member of the Working Party for the International Standard Banking Practice.
‘FOR CARRIER USE ONLY” BOX MEANS JUST WHAT IT SAYS
Heinz and his Working Party are not trying to make a new rule or a new practice in this regard. To support his statement, we have to say that this is not a new opinion from ICC. When Mr. Charles del Busto came to Hong Kong to present the UCP 500, he had already made this very clear that the flight number and date recorded in the "For Carrier Use Only" box is indented as indicated in the name of this box. It is the flight number and date scheduled but this does not necessarily bind the carrier to stick to this scheduled flight number and date.
As we have already mentioned in our previous posting, when a 747 passenger flight has the spare cargo capacity to carry this same cargo on an earlier flight, the carrier would not let the 747 passenger plane leave with an empty cargo space. This makes commercial sense and both the shipper and consignee would be happy to despatch and receive their cargo sooner than scheduled. Shall we say this an out-performance by the air-carrier?
Under such situation, the carrier would record the flight number and date separately on any space other than the "For Carrier's Use Only" box, as required by the UCP 500.
IATA CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT
Article 8.1 of the IATA conditions of contract states:
“Carrier undertakes to complete the carriage hereunder with reasonable despatch. Carrier may use alternative carriers or aircraft and may without notice and with due regard to the interests of the shipper use other means of transportation. Carrier is authorized to select the routing or to change or deviate from the routing shown on the face hereof. This sub-paragraph is not applicable to/from USA”.
For USA there is a similar sub Article but for brevity reason, it would not be quoted here.
So this would help the banker members to understand the whole picture. Hence air carriage is on “intended vessel” basis. For the sea carriage, the UCP 500 has already a requirement for “intended vessel” to provide a separate on board notation giving the name of the vessel actually loaded on board despite the same vessel name has already appeared in the “Vessel” box of a bill of lading.
Working on the same principle, when he DC requires an actual flight number and date to appear in the AWB, the carrier has to add the flight number and date separately, although the same flight number and date have already appeared in the “For Carrier Use Only” box. . This is similar to “intended vessel” treatment in BL.
NOTATION DATE IS SHIPMENT DATE IN AWB
Taking the concept adopted in cargo insurance policy, any special endorsement would supersede pre-printed, or typewritten words.
Heinz, are you going to Paris in April ICC Banking Commission meetings? We used to sit almost close together. Hope to meet you there.
www.tolee.com
[edited 3/4/02 5:56:48 PM]
‘FOR CARRIER USE ONLY” BOX MEANS JUST WHAT IT SAYS
Heinz and his Working Party are not trying to make a new rule or a new practice in this regard. To support his statement, we have to say that this is not a new opinion from ICC. When Mr. Charles del Busto came to Hong Kong to present the UCP 500, he had already made this very clear that the flight number and date recorded in the "For Carrier Use Only" box is indented as indicated in the name of this box. It is the flight number and date scheduled but this does not necessarily bind the carrier to stick to this scheduled flight number and date.
As we have already mentioned in our previous posting, when a 747 passenger flight has the spare cargo capacity to carry this same cargo on an earlier flight, the carrier would not let the 747 passenger plane leave with an empty cargo space. This makes commercial sense and both the shipper and consignee would be happy to despatch and receive their cargo sooner than scheduled. Shall we say this an out-performance by the air-carrier?
Under such situation, the carrier would record the flight number and date separately on any space other than the "For Carrier's Use Only" box, as required by the UCP 500.
IATA CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT
Article 8.1 of the IATA conditions of contract states:
“Carrier undertakes to complete the carriage hereunder with reasonable despatch. Carrier may use alternative carriers or aircraft and may without notice and with due regard to the interests of the shipper use other means of transportation. Carrier is authorized to select the routing or to change or deviate from the routing shown on the face hereof. This sub-paragraph is not applicable to/from USA”.
For USA there is a similar sub Article but for brevity reason, it would not be quoted here.
So this would help the banker members to understand the whole picture. Hence air carriage is on “intended vessel” basis. For the sea carriage, the UCP 500 has already a requirement for “intended vessel” to provide a separate on board notation giving the name of the vessel actually loaded on board despite the same vessel name has already appeared in the “Vessel” box of a bill of lading.
Working on the same principle, when he DC requires an actual flight number and date to appear in the AWB, the carrier has to add the flight number and date separately, although the same flight number and date have already appeared in the “For Carrier Use Only” box. . This is similar to “intended vessel” treatment in BL.
NOTATION DATE IS SHIPMENT DATE IN AWB
Taking the concept adopted in cargo insurance policy, any special endorsement would supersede pre-printed, or typewritten words.
Heinz, are you going to Paris in April ICC Banking Commission meetings? We used to sit almost close together. Hope to meet you there.
www.tolee.com
[edited 3/4/02 5:56:48 PM]
Article 27 - date of shipment
Thank you all for your kind comments. I am pleased to see that there seems to be common agreement on the meaning of this provision of the art. 27. I especially like the clear comment given by Mr.PGauntlett.
Pavel Andrle
Pavel Andrle