Would not naming issuing bank as notify party on b/l constit

MichaelFlanagan · Post by **MichaelFlanagan** » Fri May 16, 2003 1:00 am

L/C received calling for b/l's consigned to issuing bank and showing notify party as applicant and issuing bank. My question is that even though the bank was not named as a 'notify party' on the b/l standard practice would have the shipping company issue a notice of arrival to the named consignee, would this be grounds for the issuing bank to refuse documents and in turn the applicant refuse to take up documents and return same to negotiating bank. Is there any precedence by the ICC frowning on this type of behaviour.?

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Fri May 16, 2003 1:00 am

Without liability/responsibility:

If I understand correctly the credit stipulated that the bladings be consigned to the issuing bank AND (i.e. in addition) show the issuing bank as notify party, as well as the applicant. If so, the failure of the bladings to show the issuing bank as notify party cannot be other than a discrepancy and the question of ‘frowning’ on raising it does not arise. Whether or not the discrepancy is -as a question of fact- actually prejudicial to the issuing bank or applicant is neither here nor there.

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Sun May 18, 2003 1:00 am

I agree with Jeremy that the situation described is discrepant. It is also common practice to only show the name of the issuing bank on the B/L when consigning it to them. However, one would expect to see the full address of any notify party requested.

Laurence

PavelA · Post by **PavelA** » Sun May 18, 2003 1:00 am

I also agree. L/C requirement was clear and it was not meet. It is discrepancy.

Pavel Andrle

LeslyeBivens · Post by **LeslyeBivens** » Wed May 28, 2003 1:00 am

I agree that if the l/c comes in with a requirement that the notify parties are to be the applicant and the issuing bank, the b/l's should evidence this requirement to be in compliance with the terms/conditions of the l/c. Therefore, the documents would be discrepant because this condition was not fulfilled.

MarkColeman · Post by **MarkColeman** » Mon Jun 30, 2003 1:00 am

I am a Freight Forwarder (shipping line) & ex banker who specializes in L/C’s. It is not standard practice in our industry to also advice the consignee of the cargos arrival. Our industry works on doing the least work possible. If the B/L ask to only advise one company, that’s what most shipping lines would do. So I would also agree that it is a discrepancy.

Mark

PavelA · Post by **PavelA** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:00 am

Dear Mark Coleman,

thank you for interesting information.

Best Regards,
Pavel Andrle