Kim, I think your account of the history of Article 30 is correct. My impression that the main problem is that -like much of UCP500- while well intentioned it is poorly drafted. To me, to describe -as Article 30 does- a document signed -as carrier or agent of the carrier- by an entity that also carries out the function of ‘freight forwarder’ as having been ‘issued by a freight forwarder’ is asking for trouble.
Yahya, my opinion is that the Banking Commission had a good opportunity to bring clarity and certainty to this matter but -in my purely personal opinion- it ‘blew it’. The draft opinion suggested that the term in question overrode sub-Art 30(i), but not sub-Art30(ii). However, this seems illogical if a document signed per sub-Art30(i) or (ii) is a ‘document issued by a freight forwarder’.
I am led to believe that at the Banking Commission meeting the delegates from Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and USA had all submitted written comment challenging the draft opinion on the grounds that the issuer signed 'as carrier' and that this view received strong support from the meeting. (Perhaps someone from one of these countries could elaborate on how it was felt Article 30 had no bearing on the matter?) Apparently many members also argued -to me, quite bizarrely- that as drafted the opinion would force banks to investigate whether an organisation was a freight forwarder. Overall, my understanding is that the great majority of comment was critical of the opinion and it was agreed to modify it to make it clear that it was the signing capacity i.e. as carrier, which was important, hence -supposedly- bringing the document within Article 23(a)(i).
It is indeed regrettable that so many people could get it -it seems to me personally, based on Article 30- so wrong. The result is we have -what I personally consider to be- the profoundly flawed ‘opinion’ that is Document 474/TA.572rev.
[edited 12/22/2004 11:56:39 AM]
PERPLEXED OF BIRMINGHAM
PERPLEXED OF BIRMINGHAM
Here I go showing my age again….starting my story in mid 70’s
UCP 290 said nothing (to the best of my fading recollection) about ‘transport documents issued by freight forwarder’.
By the mid 80’s and UCP 400, the growing importance of the freight forwarding industry and the fact that they were beginning to issue transport documents was clearly understood….this was reflected in UCP 400, sub-article 25 (d) as follows:
“Unless otherwise stipulated in the credit banks will reject a transport document issued by a freight forwarder unless it is the FIATA combined transport bill of lading approved by the International Chamber of Commerce or otherwise indicates that is issued by a freight forwarder acting as a carrier or agent of a named carrier”
On the negative side this specific article reference to FIATA added little value for the day-to-day bank checker of documents for compliance.
On the positive side this specific article also made express reference to the fact that a document issued by a freight forwarder may otherwise be acceptable if it indicates that it is issued by a freight forwarder acting as a carrier or agent of a named carrier’
Fast forwarding again (dare I use the word forwarding) to UCP 500.
It was always my opinion that in the context of a banker examining documents for compliance there was no need whatsoever for the article that fits between Article 29 and Article 31.
In UCP 500, the individual transport document articles prescribed what the bank checker must check for compliance.
To the best of my recollection, the ‘offending’ article was strapped on to reinforce the fact, already covered in the individual transport document articles that should a document appear to be issued by a freight forwarder then there is no negative bias, even going as far as to state that a document issued by a freight forwarder is acceptable even to the extent when the forwarder is acting only as an agent and we are all familiar with the situation where the forwarder may only be acting as a forwarding agent ...........‘ signed or authenticated by the freight forwarder as an agent for or on behalf of a carrier or multimodal transport operator’
Best wishes for 2005.
Vin
[edited 12/23/2004 2:54:51 PM]
UCP 290 said nothing (to the best of my fading recollection) about ‘transport documents issued by freight forwarder’.
By the mid 80’s and UCP 400, the growing importance of the freight forwarding industry and the fact that they were beginning to issue transport documents was clearly understood….this was reflected in UCP 400, sub-article 25 (d) as follows:
“Unless otherwise stipulated in the credit banks will reject a transport document issued by a freight forwarder unless it is the FIATA combined transport bill of lading approved by the International Chamber of Commerce or otherwise indicates that is issued by a freight forwarder acting as a carrier or agent of a named carrier”
On the negative side this specific article reference to FIATA added little value for the day-to-day bank checker of documents for compliance.
On the positive side this specific article also made express reference to the fact that a document issued by a freight forwarder may otherwise be acceptable if it indicates that it is issued by a freight forwarder acting as a carrier or agent of a named carrier’
Fast forwarding again (dare I use the word forwarding) to UCP 500.
It was always my opinion that in the context of a banker examining documents for compliance there was no need whatsoever for the article that fits between Article 29 and Article 31.
In UCP 500, the individual transport document articles prescribed what the bank checker must check for compliance.
To the best of my recollection, the ‘offending’ article was strapped on to reinforce the fact, already covered in the individual transport document articles that should a document appear to be issued by a freight forwarder then there is no negative bias, even going as far as to state that a document issued by a freight forwarder is acceptable even to the extent when the forwarder is acting only as an agent and we are all familiar with the situation where the forwarder may only be acting as a forwarding agent ...........‘ signed or authenticated by the freight forwarder as an agent for or on behalf of a carrier or multimodal transport operator’
Best wishes for 2005.
Vin
[edited 12/23/2004 2:54:51 PM]
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
PERPLEXED OF BIRMINGHAM
Dear Vincent,
Nice to hear from you. It sounds like we should start a club: “LC Specialists against article 30”
Best regards
Kim
[edited 12/24/2004 11:46:59 AM]
Nice to hear from you. It sounds like we should start a club: “LC Specialists against article 30”
Best regards
Kim
[edited 12/24/2004 11:46:59 AM]
PERPLEXED OF BIRMINGHAM
I notice our, and in particular my, postings in this ‘thread’ are quoted in the latest DCI by Prof. Boris Kozolchyk. While I am gratified to have -I think- the support of such an esteemed commentator for my views, I am nonetheless gravely concerned to have postings that appear here quoted in a magazine, even if it is on an unattributed basis. Also, I assume -possibly incorrectly- that Prof. Kozolchyk is not a subscriber to DC-Pro. If my assumption is correct this means a subscriber to DC-Pro has copied and passed-on the discussions to Prof. Kozolchyk.
It is possible that I am being extremely naïve in assuming that postings on a subscription only website would remain out of the public domain. (Incidentally, I was approached last year by another D/C internet site for permission to publish a posting I had made on DC-Pro. At least then I had the opportunity of declining and did so.) Nonetheless I feel this -for me, further- development could act as a deterrent to contributions to the discussion forum. It will certainly make me think twice in the future.
Could Leo or Derek please clarify if there is anything in DC-Pro’s terms and conditions regarding the use of postings made to the discussion forum and, if not, if this will provoke the introduction of such terms and conditions?
Worried of Birmingham
[edited 4/26/2005 10:02:27 AM]
It is possible that I am being extremely naïve in assuming that postings on a subscription only website would remain out of the public domain. (Incidentally, I was approached last year by another D/C internet site for permission to publish a posting I had made on DC-Pro. At least then I had the opportunity of declining and did so.) Nonetheless I feel this -for me, further- development could act as a deterrent to contributions to the discussion forum. It will certainly make me think twice in the future.
Could Leo or Derek please clarify if there is anything in DC-Pro’s terms and conditions regarding the use of postings made to the discussion forum and, if not, if this will provoke the introduction of such terms and conditions?
Worried of Birmingham
[edited 4/26/2005 10:02:27 AM]
PERPLEXED OF BIRMINGHAM
Hi Jeremy,
As we discussed yesterday, there is no provision for such a
situation in our terms of service...it had not registered,
or been seen as a difficulty.
In response to your concerns, we will include appropriate
wording in the TOS.
As we discussed yesterday, there is no provision for such a
situation in our terms of service...it had not registered,
or been seen as a difficulty.
In response to your concerns, we will include appropriate
wording in the TOS.
PERPLEXED OF BIRMINGHAM
Thanks, Leo.
PERPLEXED OF BIRMINGHAM
Hello All,
‘Perplexed’ here once again.
Curious one, that I’d thought I’d share with you as I’ve not seen it before. ‘Export’ (‘inward’) credit issued by a ‘Southern Asian’ bank that states:
‘FORWARDERS / N.V.O.C.C. BILL(S) OF LADING NOT ACCEPTABLE’.
Not sure how the issuing bank expects a document examiner to identify that the ‘carrier’ is a NVOCC (non-vessel operating common carrier), unless -that is- there is an indication the ‘carrier’ is a ‘forwarding agent’, in which case reference to NVOCC in the credit is otiose. Anyone any thoughts on the subject?
Incidentally, when our doc credits area reverted on the question of forwarders bills of lading not being acceptable the response it rec’d from the issuing bank was:
‘PLS. REFER TO ARTICLE 30 OF UCP500 AND BE GUIDED ACCORDINGLY.’!!!!
Normally I would take this as a statement B/Ls signed per Art 30 are acceptable. However, given the fact that NVOCC B/Ls are excluded this seems illogical.
What ‘fun’ is the doc credits world.
[edited 6/27/2005 12:37:05 PM]
‘Perplexed’ here once again.
Curious one, that I’d thought I’d share with you as I’ve not seen it before. ‘Export’ (‘inward’) credit issued by a ‘Southern Asian’ bank that states:
‘FORWARDERS / N.V.O.C.C. BILL(S) OF LADING NOT ACCEPTABLE’.
Not sure how the issuing bank expects a document examiner to identify that the ‘carrier’ is a NVOCC (non-vessel operating common carrier), unless -that is- there is an indication the ‘carrier’ is a ‘forwarding agent’, in which case reference to NVOCC in the credit is otiose. Anyone any thoughts on the subject?
Incidentally, when our doc credits area reverted on the question of forwarders bills of lading not being acceptable the response it rec’d from the issuing bank was:
‘PLS. REFER TO ARTICLE 30 OF UCP500 AND BE GUIDED ACCORDINGLY.’!!!!
Normally I would take this as a statement B/Ls signed per Art 30 are acceptable. However, given the fact that NVOCC B/Ls are excluded this seems illogical.
What ‘fun’ is the doc credits world.
[edited 6/27/2005 12:37:05 PM]
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
PERPLEXED OF BIRMINGHAM
Dear Jeremy,
Thanks for the example. This is really ”great”: Every time you think that you have seen it all, it seems that you have to start all over again. ….
Have no idea how to interpret this from a doc. credit point of view. Especially with TA.572rev (mentioned in your initial posting) in mind. If the term “Transport document issued by Freight Forwarder not acceptable” is ambiguous … then I wonder what this is
Guess you have a point: the term NVOCC points at the capacity of the issuer.
I see the term “NVOCC” as being so closely connected to the transport industry, and with no relevance to – and no place in – a documentary credit. Therefore my initial viewpoint is to check if “NVOCC” is mentioned in the document. If not – and signed “as carrier” – I would accept it.
If the intention is, that the “carrier” should be the actual owner of the vessel; then I would suggest some “positive” (easy to check) requirement regarding this. Must say, that I fail to see the point in this, and would really like to know the intention of this clause; why is it exactly that it is added to the credit?
Best regards
Kim
Thanks for the example. This is really ”great”: Every time you think that you have seen it all, it seems that you have to start all over again. ….
Have no idea how to interpret this from a doc. credit point of view. Especially with TA.572rev (mentioned in your initial posting) in mind. If the term “Transport document issued by Freight Forwarder not acceptable” is ambiguous … then I wonder what this is
Guess you have a point: the term NVOCC points at the capacity of the issuer.
I see the term “NVOCC” as being so closely connected to the transport industry, and with no relevance to – and no place in – a documentary credit. Therefore my initial viewpoint is to check if “NVOCC” is mentioned in the document. If not – and signed “as carrier” – I would accept it.
If the intention is, that the “carrier” should be the actual owner of the vessel; then I would suggest some “positive” (easy to check) requirement regarding this. Must say, that I fail to see the point in this, and would really like to know the intention of this clause; why is it exactly that it is added to the credit?
Best regards
Kim