Marine verse Multimodal b/l

[MikeSilverman]

Here is a case which seem to give a few headaches and I would like get different points of views.

The Shipment is from coming from China to Montreal. The letter of credit calls for a Marine b/l and freight collect. When the issuing bank examines the documents, a Multimodal b/l is presented I/O a marine b/l. The multimodal b/l states shipment from china, Vancouver as port of discharge and final destination as Montreal and shipping terms freight collect.

Would you pick it up as a discrepancy since the freight charges are being paid for by the applicant and shipment went to Vancouver instead of directly to Montreal.

[larryBacon]

Mike,

welcome to the discussion forum

Although the net effect of the MM B/L presented is negligible in practical terms, the fact remains that the LC calls for a Marine B/L, but a MM B/L was presented and is therefore discrepant.

Laurence

[LisaVC]

I believe your discrepancy is port of discharge is Vancouver instead Montreal as required by the credit. See ICC Opinion R 226.

[NigelHolt]

Mike,

Without liability / responsibility, personally:

I do not consider presentation of a MMTD, of itself, non-compliant if it meets the terms of Article 23 given the ‘however named’ provision of sub-Article 23a. However, ASSUMING the credit stipulates the port of discharge as Montreal it is non-compliant as it is in breach of sub-Article 23(a)(iii). That ‘the freight charges are being paid for by the applicant’ etc seems to me to be of no relevance whatsoever.

Jeremy

[JudithAutié]

Hi Mike and welcome

Without responsibility etc. I agree with Jeremy -- I frequently see MM B/L's used as port to port B/LS. In fact quite a few B/Ls have a box to check if it is to be used as a MM B/L, otherwise it is used as a Port to Port.
The discrepancy would come from the port of discharge not being the one stipulated in the credit

Judith

[KimChristensen]

Dear Mike,

I am fully in line with Jeremy here. However – assuming that this is a real case/dispute where you seek “fuel” for argumentation, I think that you should be very careful. The answers given here are based on the known facts alone. For this case I would surely like to see the document.
Example: The fact that Montreal is mentioned in the “final destination” box and not the “port of discharge box” need not be a problem – as long it is clear from the document that the goods will be transported to Montreal by vessel. See ISBP paragraph 81.

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

Kim,

Good point.

Jeremy