We have an L/C that asks for “Full set of clean on board ocean bills of lading made out to order and blank endorsed marked fright prpaid notifying applicant.” Standard request. We are presenting Bills of lading that clearly has a “shipped on board date” but a bank in China are charging us a discrepancy fee because the B/L does not stating an “ISSUE DATE”. The B/L states: “Place of Issue: Melbourne. Date Laden on Board: 12 Jul 2003”. No where else in the L/C does it ask for the B/L to have an ISSUE date.
I cannot find anywhere in the UCP that a B/L MUST have an issue date AND a shipped on board date. What's does everyone else think?
Regards
Mark, Melbourne Australia
Issue date on B/L.
-
MarkColeman
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:22 pm
Issue date on B/L.
Based on the facts you have outlined this would appear to me, personally, to be a spurious discrepancy.
Issue date on B/L.
Mark,
In my view you should have better posted this query under "ISBP" !
Drafts,transport documents and insurance documents must be dated even if a credit does not expressly so require ... (Art. 13 ISBP - ICC Publication No. 645 )!
I would be interested to know whether the chinese bank made any reference to ISBP or to this article in their L/C or their notice of refusal !
Karl Mayrl, Erste Bank, Vienna,Austria ( the country without cangoroos )
In my view you should have better posted this query under "ISBP" !
Drafts,transport documents and insurance documents must be dated even if a credit does not expressly so require ... (Art. 13 ISBP - ICC Publication No. 645 )!
I would be interested to know whether the chinese bank made any reference to ISBP or to this article in their L/C or their notice of refusal !
Karl Mayrl, Erste Bank, Vienna,Austria ( the country without cangoroos )
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Issue date on B/L.
Mark,
I suggest that you ask the bank in question under which article of UCP they are rejecting this document.
I agree with Jeremy that there is no valid basis for this rejection.
Article 23 a ii dictates that, where shipment is indicated by pre-printed wording etc, the issue date is deemed to be the shipment date. There is clear equivalence here which does not seem to be recognised by the bank, but this equivalence does not indicate a mandatory requirement of issue date, although there is a requirement for loading on board or shipment date.
In general the issue date is not significant for a B/L, as this date can be before or after shipment. Since the date of issue can in most instances be predetermined to be coincident with the date of shipment, this allows for preprinting of "shipped on board" Bs/L. Article 23 a ii deals with this coincident date by deeming the issue date to be the date of loading on board or date of shipment.
Laurence
I suggest that you ask the bank in question under which article of UCP they are rejecting this document.
I agree with Jeremy that there is no valid basis for this rejection.
Article 23 a ii dictates that, where shipment is indicated by pre-printed wording etc, the issue date is deemed to be the shipment date. There is clear equivalence here which does not seem to be recognised by the bank, but this equivalence does not indicate a mandatory requirement of issue date, although there is a requirement for loading on board or shipment date.
In general the issue date is not significant for a B/L, as this date can be before or after shipment. Since the date of issue can in most instances be predetermined to be coincident with the date of shipment, this allows for preprinting of "shipped on board" Bs/L. Article 23 a ii deals with this coincident date by deeming the issue date to be the date of loading on board or date of shipment.
Laurence
-
MarkColeman
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:22 pm
Issue date on B/L.
Having had a look at the ISBP 13, it does state that the docs must be dated, but ISBP 78 clarifies it further. It states “……..it’s issuance date will be deemed to be the date of shipment……..” To me, it means that if a B/L has a shipped onboard date of: 12 Jul 2002 and there was no issue date noted on the B/L, that would automate make the issue date: 12 Jul 2002. Would you agree?
Mark
Mark
Issue date on B/L.
Mark,
If I understand correctly loading on board has been indicated by ‘pre-printed’ wording on the bladings (your reference to para 78 further suggests this is the case). I.e., the words ‘Date Laden on Board:’ appear to have been part of the contents of the blading form PRIOR to its completion with the details of the particular shipment. Thus it falls within the ambit of the para of sub-Art 23a(ii) that starts ‘Loading on board …’. Therefore, its ‘issue’ date and the ‘on-board’ date are one and the same thing, and thus it IS dated and DOES bear an issue date.
Jeremy
If I understand correctly loading on board has been indicated by ‘pre-printed’ wording on the bladings (your reference to para 78 further suggests this is the case). I.e., the words ‘Date Laden on Board:’ appear to have been part of the contents of the blading form PRIOR to its completion with the details of the particular shipment. Thus it falls within the ambit of the para of sub-Art 23a(ii) that starts ‘Loading on board …’. Therefore, its ‘issue’ date and the ‘on-board’ date are one and the same thing, and thus it IS dated and DOES bear an issue date.
Jeremy
-
MichaelFlanagan
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:14 pm
Issue date on B/L.
The issue here is that it is not a pre-printed Shipped on board bill of lading, i.e. the date that the goods have been loaded on board has been added. Essentially it is a Cosco Container Lines received for shipment bill of lading. Therefore clause 13 of ISBP would apply in this case.
-
MarkColeman
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:22 pm
Issue date on B/L.
Re the date being added. It is in the EXACT same type face and printed (by lazer printer) at the exact same time as the rest of the typing on the B/L. It has not been typed at a latter stage. IE after printing. There is no difference between the printing of the shippers name etc, and the “shipped on board date”
Also the bank are only calling one discrepancy of “B/L does not have an issue date”. If, as you say, it is a “received for shipment B/L”, that would be another (big) discrepancy as it asks for a “shipped on board B/L.”
Mark.
Also the bank are only calling one discrepancy of “B/L does not have an issue date”. If, as you say, it is a “received for shipment B/L”, that would be another (big) discrepancy as it asks for a “shipped on board B/L.”
Mark.
Issue date on B/L.
Mark,
Agree with Laurence's 7/17/03 msg. Not a discrepancy.
Don Smith
Agree with Laurence's 7/17/03 msg. Not a discrepancy.
Don Smith
Issue date on B/L.
Now that I’ve found a bit of time, the above query has provoked me to raise something over which I’ve tied myself in intellectual (if that is not too complementary a term) knots for some while: that is the meaning of the term ‘on-board notation’ (‘OBN’) in the context of sub-Article 23a(ii) (the ‘sub-Art’).
My impression is that in order for something to be an OBN it must have been made AFTER the B/L was issued. For example, the ‘A to Z of international trade’ (ICC Publication 623) seems to imply this, as it states an OBN ‘should be initialled by an employee or agent of the carrier’ (I recognise the sub-Art does not itself require this). To me, initialling is only appropriate where something is added to a document POST-issue. Also, per the sub-Art, an OBN must at least include the date on which goods have been loaded on board, if not the vessel name and port of loading as well (depending on the circumstance), which suggests to me the sub-Art itself also envisages that an OBN is (apparently) made AFTER issue of the B/L.
Overall, it seems to me the sub-Art is drafted on the premise that there are only two sorts of B/L: the ‘PRE-printed’ shipped on board B/L (‘shipped B/L’) and the ‘PRE-printed’ received for shipment B/L (‘received B/L’). I recognise the sub-Art makes no reference to the received B/L but, for example, the ‘analysis’ in Opinion 284 seems to be based on the premise that there are only these two sorts.
However, I believe the B/L in this query is neither a shipped nor a received B/L. Rather the words ‘laden on board’ appear to have been printed, rather than PRE-printed, at the time the B/L was issued. Can -for the purposes of the sub-Art- this B/L be said (to appear to) bear an OBN, given the on board statement has (apparently) not been added after the B/L was issued? If not, it would seem to be discrepant as it bears no 'pre-printed' indication goods have been loaded on board etc.
I would be curious to hear the views of others to this, perhaps rather abstruse/obvious (depending on your point of view), question (whether from the world of banking or shipping).
[edited 7/30/03 4:03:32 PM]
My impression is that in order for something to be an OBN it must have been made AFTER the B/L was issued. For example, the ‘A to Z of international trade’ (ICC Publication 623) seems to imply this, as it states an OBN ‘should be initialled by an employee or agent of the carrier’ (I recognise the sub-Art does not itself require this). To me, initialling is only appropriate where something is added to a document POST-issue. Also, per the sub-Art, an OBN must at least include the date on which goods have been loaded on board, if not the vessel name and port of loading as well (depending on the circumstance), which suggests to me the sub-Art itself also envisages that an OBN is (apparently) made AFTER issue of the B/L.
Overall, it seems to me the sub-Art is drafted on the premise that there are only two sorts of B/L: the ‘PRE-printed’ shipped on board B/L (‘shipped B/L’) and the ‘PRE-printed’ received for shipment B/L (‘received B/L’). I recognise the sub-Art makes no reference to the received B/L but, for example, the ‘analysis’ in Opinion 284 seems to be based on the premise that there are only these two sorts.
However, I believe the B/L in this query is neither a shipped nor a received B/L. Rather the words ‘laden on board’ appear to have been printed, rather than PRE-printed, at the time the B/L was issued. Can -for the purposes of the sub-Art- this B/L be said (to appear to) bear an OBN, given the on board statement has (apparently) not been added after the B/L was issued? If not, it would seem to be discrepant as it bears no 'pre-printed' indication goods have been loaded on board etc.
I would be curious to hear the views of others to this, perhaps rather abstruse/obvious (depending on your point of view), question (whether from the world of banking or shipping).
[edited 7/30/03 4:03:32 PM]