Article 19 - 20

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:00 am

Both the articles are fine. However, how should the multimodal or combined transport document be indicated on the opening of the L/C ? Would the request of a multimodal transport document be enough, even without specifying in many exemplars same has to be presented since already mentioned in sub. art. iv of both articles.
Roland

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:00 am

Dear Roland,

I am not totally sure what exactly you are asking (sorry if it is me who is slow);

Is it: “Which phrase to use in the LC in order to direct the document examiner to either article 19 or 20?”
Or is it “Does the LC need to specify the number of originals required?

I am inclined to believe it is the latter – but not sure.

If so however – I guess the answer is that if the LC is silent as to the number of originals to be presented – then the “full set” must be presented (and the number of originals issued must be indicated on the document).
If the LC specifies how many originals to be presented – then that number must be presented – and must (unless the LC says otherwise) be the “full set”.

Best regards
Kim

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:00 am

Kim
Thank you very much and apologize for my confusion. My question was much more referred to your point 1, i.e. how should the document be named when opening the L/C when same should apply to art. 19
Sorry and thanks again
Roland

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:00 am

Roland,

Sometimes I think that we should be very specific, going as far as to name the document (MTD, B/L, ...) but also to state that is must be subject to art. 19, 20,...

Daniel

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:00 am

Dear Roland,

I think in any case that you should be very careful when you word your LC. After all the main purpose of the LC requirement for a transport documents is to direct the document checker to the correct UCP article (19-25 – or none of those).

My personal view is that you can do that in a number of ways: If you want the documents checker to use article 20 you can for example say:

Bill of lading
Marine bill of lading
Ocean bill of lading
Port-to-port bill of lading

I think that René Muller at an ICC seminar on UCP 600 suggested something like:

Bill of lading in accordance with article 20

As for article 19 – perhaps there are fewer variations – like:

Multimodal transport document
Combined transport document

I doubt that you – in the LC – would say: “Transport Document Covering at Least Two Different Modes of Transport”

So to cut it short: I think that you can do this in a number of ways; important is that you clearly point at the UCP article that you want the documents checker to base the examination on.

Best regards
Kim

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:00 am

Dear Roland

I should also refer to ISBP (2007) paragraph 68 (MMTD) and 91 (BL) – which actually does guide in this respect.

Best regards
Kim

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:00 am

Dear Daniel and Kim,
Thanks to both of you for those clarifications. Much probably we will adopt the wording proposed by Daniel indicating clearly that the document should apply to art. 19 or 20. Furthermore, point 44B, place of final destination, shown on issue 700 of a documentary credit should allow to understand under which article the transport document should be issued.
Then, both art. require the full set. What should be indicated if the credit require 2/3 original B/L since exclusion must be clearly indicated ? B/L as per article 20 excluding clause iv ?
Roland

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:00 am

Dear Roland,

I have heard the argument that the ”improved” wording of article 1 of UCP 600 requires one to be so ”express”.

Form my point of view I surely do not hope that this will be the prevailing practice.

If you e.g. write 2/3 B/L then (in my mind) you clearly “modify” 20(a)(iv) – without having to state the number of that article.

& what about “presentation period”; if you write a different number of days than 21 – must you then “expressly” state:

“Presentation period: 10 days
Thus modifying UCP 600 sub-article 14(c) to read: A presentation under this LC requiring presentation of original bill of lading subject to article 20 must be made by or on behalf of the beneficiary not later than 10 (ten) calendar days after the date of shipment as described in the UCP 600, but in any event not later than the expiry date of this LC”

[If yes; please send more paper]

Best regards
Kim

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:00 am

Dear Kim,
Thanks again,...........and I will not annoy anymore on subject since I do fully agree with your thinking. Unfortunately, famous cases have demonstrate that applying good sense has not always been the best way to the right solution.
Byeeeee
Roland

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:00 am

Dear Roland,

Just for the sake of good order: You are NOT annoying me

& yes – common sense is not always the guiding light when LCs are involved …

Best regards
Kim