This is really an interesting situation.
At first I looked at this issue, I strictly agreed with Abdulkader, but after I reconsidered the requirement of the condition,
I determined that the doc is acceptable on the basis that the date of issuance of the doc is really later than that of the credit.
The requirement basicly prohibits the presentation of the docs bearing an issuance date prior of the date of the issuance of the credit.
I believe that the requirement does not apply to the date of the on board notation.
Regards,
Yahya
[edited 10/13/2006 10:31:08 AM]
Date of Transport Document
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Date of Transport Document
The question that needs to be answered is what would be considered as the date of a bill of lading. Is it the date it is signed or is it the on board date? That is if both dates appear on the document.
As stated in my earlier posting, ISBP para 45 (c) considers the on board date as the date of the bill of lading for the purpose of calculating the maturity date.
Let's now look at a reverse situation. Let's say that the box labeled as issuance date bears a date prior to the date the LC was issued or if there is no such label (issaunce date) the date the bill of lading was signed (as usually illustrated below or adjacent to the signature) is prior to the date of the LC but the on board date is after such date (date of the LC). Could we then consider this document as discrepant? Does considering the document as discrepant fulfill the intention of the condition (clause) in the LC? I don't know, but I doubt it does.
In this case, I would also be interested to know what the ICC Banking Commission considers as the date of a bill of lading.
Regards
Abdulkader
[edited 10/13/2006 10:56:04 PM]
As stated in my earlier posting, ISBP para 45 (c) considers the on board date as the date of the bill of lading for the purpose of calculating the maturity date.
Let's now look at a reverse situation. Let's say that the box labeled as issuance date bears a date prior to the date the LC was issued or if there is no such label (issaunce date) the date the bill of lading was signed (as usually illustrated below or adjacent to the signature) is prior to the date of the LC but the on board date is after such date (date of the LC). Could we then consider this document as discrepant? Does considering the document as discrepant fulfill the intention of the condition (clause) in the LC? I don't know, but I doubt it does.
In this case, I would also be interested to know what the ICC Banking Commission considers as the date of a bill of lading.
Regards
Abdulkader
[edited 10/13/2006 10:56:04 PM]
Date of Transport Document
AbdulKader,
Your reference to ISPB para 45 (C) would be valid if we are looking to determine the maturity date. Let us assume that we are dealing with a sight credit would you still apply the same criteria to determine the issue date.
Regards,
Khalid
Your reference to ISPB para 45 (C) would be valid if we are looking to determine the maturity date. Let us assume that we are dealing with a sight credit would you still apply the same criteria to determine the issue date.
Regards,
Khalid
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Date of Transport Document
Khalid,
Without prejudice to whether the LC is a sight or usance, reference to ISPB para 45 ( c) is made to remind readers that the in a specific situation Banking Commission has consider the on board date as the bill of lading date. Therefore, it is likely, though I'm not sure, that it would also apply the same phenomenon here if its opinion is sought.
I believe the main reasons for importers to add the clause, in question, in their LCs are usually to control presentation of other documents such as for example: inspection, health, analysis, cargo and gear, vessel age etc certificates which would technically lose their validity and thus make a big difference if they are very old (e.g. issued more than a year ago and have no validity period).
To conclude from purely technical point of view, yes, I would, in the case brought up by you, inclind to consider the presentation as discrepant; however, practically, the clause does not give sense to me when applied to transport documents because, in normal circumstances, presentation of such documents are fairly regulated by article 43(a) of UCP 500; therefore, whether the date of shipment (on board date) or the date of issuance of the bill of lading happen to be prior or later than the LC issuance date should not, in my opinion, affect the business (i.e. of course in normal circumstances).
In addition, I don't think this type of clauses accurately reflects the intention of the parties involved. The better clause would be relating the issuance of documents to the date of shipment or date of presentation etc rather than the date of LC. Example of a better clause would be: "Documents must not bear a date more than …….. days from date of shipment" or similar clause. The former clause would allow presentation of document (e.g. inspection certificate) as old as one year or more provided it is issued after the date of issuance of the LC but presented within its (credit) validity period.
regards
Abdulkader
[edited 10/16/2006 2:06:37 PM]
Without prejudice to whether the LC is a sight or usance, reference to ISPB para 45 ( c) is made to remind readers that the in a specific situation Banking Commission has consider the on board date as the bill of lading date. Therefore, it is likely, though I'm not sure, that it would also apply the same phenomenon here if its opinion is sought.
I believe the main reasons for importers to add the clause, in question, in their LCs are usually to control presentation of other documents such as for example: inspection, health, analysis, cargo and gear, vessel age etc certificates which would technically lose their validity and thus make a big difference if they are very old (e.g. issued more than a year ago and have no validity period).
To conclude from purely technical point of view, yes, I would, in the case brought up by you, inclind to consider the presentation as discrepant; however, practically, the clause does not give sense to me when applied to transport documents because, in normal circumstances, presentation of such documents are fairly regulated by article 43(a) of UCP 500; therefore, whether the date of shipment (on board date) or the date of issuance of the bill of lading happen to be prior or later than the LC issuance date should not, in my opinion, affect the business (i.e. of course in normal circumstances).
In addition, I don't think this type of clauses accurately reflects the intention of the parties involved. The better clause would be relating the issuance of documents to the date of shipment or date of presentation etc rather than the date of LC. Example of a better clause would be: "Documents must not bear a date more than …….. days from date of shipment" or similar clause. The former clause would allow presentation of document (e.g. inspection certificate) as old as one year or more provided it is issued after the date of issuance of the LC but presented within its (credit) validity period.
regards
Abdulkader
[edited 10/16/2006 2:06:37 PM]
Date of Transport Document
AbdulKader,
My friend informs me that this particular credit allows for presentation of documents within the validity of the credit.
best regards
Khalid
P.s Personally I tend to agree with your line of argument, but as you said I am not certain how the ICC would rule in the alternate situation.
My friend informs me that this particular credit allows for presentation of documents within the validity of the credit.
best regards
Khalid
P.s Personally I tend to agree with your line of argument, but as you said I am not certain how the ICC would rule in the alternate situation.