Hello Hatem,
If my last comments have caused you any discomfort, which I do not intend, please accept my sincere apologies.
Your friend
T. O.
Two Queries on the B/L
Two Queries on the B/L
The banker must check the documents for compliance with the Credit and UCP. If the document can not be clearly linked then how can it be examinded for compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit?
Apart from signature, stamp or other authentication it is possible to determine a clear link between a b/l and an attachment. Because there are so many 'what if' situations possible under documentary credits it is best to provide real concrete examples. Here is one example where I considered a b/l had on it's face a clear link to an attachment (apart from signature, stamp or other authentication). In this real case the attachment was on the exact same type/texture of paper as b/l. The font style was exactly the same. It bore the same bl no. It stated 'this addedentum is to be considered as an integral part of bl no and incorporates supplementary terms and conditions).
In that particular case I determined there was a link. The attachment and bl taken together complied. As nominate bank I paid beneficiary and received prompt reimbursement from Issuing Bank.
However, I have no problem in accepting that in other 'what if' situations it may not be so clear.
Pavel Andrle
Apart from signature, stamp or other authentication it is possible to determine a clear link between a b/l and an attachment. Because there are so many 'what if' situations possible under documentary credits it is best to provide real concrete examples. Here is one example where I considered a b/l had on it's face a clear link to an attachment (apart from signature, stamp or other authentication). In this real case the attachment was on the exact same type/texture of paper as b/l. The font style was exactly the same. It bore the same bl no. It stated 'this addedentum is to be considered as an integral part of bl no and incorporates supplementary terms and conditions).
In that particular case I determined there was a link. The attachment and bl taken together complied. As nominate bank I paid beneficiary and received prompt reimbursement from Issuing Bank.
However, I have no problem in accepting that in other 'what if' situations it may not be so clear.
Pavel Andrle
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
Earlier in your posts you said that you agree with the opinion of Abdulkader who assumed that there might be a chop imposed on both B/L and the attachment, however Abdulkader said “Notwithstanding above, I would not consider a bill of lading as discrepant provided it shows or refers to the goods description, at least, in general terms and refers to an attachment. The attachment shouldn’t, of course, be inconsistent with either the bill of lading or the other documents presented under the credit”
You agreed to that opinion and therefore I told you have made a hastily reply.
Later you restricted the acceptance of the attachment to having “signature, stamp or other authentication”
Now, as it appears from my original query the B/L does not identify the attachment as an integral part and the attachment is not signed nor stamped, hence is my query is the data referring to the same transaction enough to accept this bill of lading and the attachment thereto?
The “what if” questions are for the sake of argument for those who are prepared to accept the bill of lading. Their purpose is to give insights of possible situations that might take place.
The original description of the B/L presented is totally genuine. I described the two cases as it is without any deviations. The case you referred to is different because the attachment clearly says it is an integral part of the B/L and is stamped by the carrier, but in this situation it is not. Hence your action towards your case may not apply to this query and hence you did not provide a straight answer to it.
You agreed to that opinion and therefore I told you have made a hastily reply.
Later you restricted the acceptance of the attachment to having “signature, stamp or other authentication”
Now, as it appears from my original query the B/L does not identify the attachment as an integral part and the attachment is not signed nor stamped, hence is my query is the data referring to the same transaction enough to accept this bill of lading and the attachment thereto?
The “what if” questions are for the sake of argument for those who are prepared to accept the bill of lading. Their purpose is to give insights of possible situations that might take place.
The original description of the B/L presented is totally genuine. I described the two cases as it is without any deviations. The case you referred to is different because the attachment clearly says it is an integral part of the B/L and is stamped by the carrier, but in this situation it is not. Hence your action towards your case may not apply to this query and hence you did not provide a straight answer to it.
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
DEAR MR. LEE
YOUR APOLOGY ACCEPTED.
WISH YOU ALL THE BEST.
REGARDS
HATEM
YOUR APOLOGY ACCEPTED.
WISH YOU ALL THE BEST.
REGARDS
HATEM
Two Queries on the B/L
"TO BE OR NOT TO BE"
OUR FRIENDLY AND GENERALISED SUGGESTIONS
To make the DC Pro Discussion Forum work better, we have a friendly advice, or proposal if you will, for our members to consider.
NO NEED TO SAY "I AGREE"
Unless a member here has different views or some "add on" comments or opinions on the issues under discussion, it is not necessary to post a message just to say "I agree". Otherwise we may have a thousand "I agree" here, and that is not what is intended in the DC Pro Discussion Forum.
WE RESPECT FREEDOM OF SPEECH
We are not trying to point our fingers to any member or to stop freedom of speech. Please do not misunderstand our motive. We only make suggestions to make the Discussion Forum work better. For those who disagree, they may continue to do so. This is their freedom anyway.
PURELY "AGREE OR DISAGREE' BY ITSELF CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REAL CONTRIBUTION OR EFFECTIVE OPINIONS EXCHANGE
The real purpose of any discussion forum is to allow members to contribute different views from different perspectives for other members to consider, a sort of opinions exchange. Therefore whether one agrees or disagrees with that particular opinion is not important. The importance is to exchange.
Just saying agree or disagree cannot be considered as a real contribution or deemed to be an effective exchange of opinions unless some other personal views are also given in the same "I agree" message.
PLEASE DON'T GET TOO SENSITIVE OVER OUR GENERALISED MESSAGE
Any please don't get too sensitive over this message or to interpret that we are talking to you or any member personally. Otherwise suggestions like this would not be seen here again.
And for those who disagree, please be reminded that we too have our own freedom of speech to make suggestions here.
We wish to make a point without making an enemy.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/25/01 5:16:42 PM]
OUR FRIENDLY AND GENERALISED SUGGESTIONS
To make the DC Pro Discussion Forum work better, we have a friendly advice, or proposal if you will, for our members to consider.
NO NEED TO SAY "I AGREE"
Unless a member here has different views or some "add on" comments or opinions on the issues under discussion, it is not necessary to post a message just to say "I agree". Otherwise we may have a thousand "I agree" here, and that is not what is intended in the DC Pro Discussion Forum.
WE RESPECT FREEDOM OF SPEECH
We are not trying to point our fingers to any member or to stop freedom of speech. Please do not misunderstand our motive. We only make suggestions to make the Discussion Forum work better. For those who disagree, they may continue to do so. This is their freedom anyway.
PURELY "AGREE OR DISAGREE' BY ITSELF CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS REAL CONTRIBUTION OR EFFECTIVE OPINIONS EXCHANGE
The real purpose of any discussion forum is to allow members to contribute different views from different perspectives for other members to consider, a sort of opinions exchange. Therefore whether one agrees or disagrees with that particular opinion is not important. The importance is to exchange.
Just saying agree or disagree cannot be considered as a real contribution or deemed to be an effective exchange of opinions unless some other personal views are also given in the same "I agree" message.
PLEASE DON'T GET TOO SENSITIVE OVER OUR GENERALISED MESSAGE
Any please don't get too sensitive over this message or to interpret that we are talking to you or any member personally. Otherwise suggestions like this would not be seen here again.
And for those who disagree, please be reminded that we too have our own freedom of speech to make suggestions here.
We wish to make a point without making an enemy.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/25/01 5:16:42 PM]
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
I believe a document examiner should use his commonsense in checking documents. An Attachment to the bill of lading would be accepted, as far as I'm concerned, even if it has not be signed or stamped provided it could be genuinely related / linked to the bill of lading. We should know that a shipper who could forge an attachment could as well forge a bill of lading.
A bill of lading that shows the place of shipment, place of destination, whether transhipment took place or not, the on board notation etc on the attachment would make any document examiner raise a "red flag" even if it appears from its face that it has been properly signed and stamped by the ship agent, carrier etc because it is not normal to have these information appear on the attachment. In addition, any inconsistency between the attachment and the bill of lading or any other document presented should be considered as a discrepancy.
As we all know, bills of lading have structured format. This format has to be properly filled out, we should not go for the awkward situation. The attachment is for excessive details. As excessive details are discouraged by UCP, thus wherever it happens, these details will usually be limited to certain information. Normally defects in the goods appear on the bill of lading and not on the attachment. A prudent document examiner would know the details that usually appear on the attachment and would suspect a bill of lading that has all the details appearing on the attachment.
[edited 10/25/01 9:10:22 PM]
A bill of lading that shows the place of shipment, place of destination, whether transhipment took place or not, the on board notation etc on the attachment would make any document examiner raise a "red flag" even if it appears from its face that it has been properly signed and stamped by the ship agent, carrier etc because it is not normal to have these information appear on the attachment. In addition, any inconsistency between the attachment and the bill of lading or any other document presented should be considered as a discrepancy.
As we all know, bills of lading have structured format. This format has to be properly filled out, we should not go for the awkward situation. The attachment is for excessive details. As excessive details are discouraged by UCP, thus wherever it happens, these details will usually be limited to certain information. Normally defects in the goods appear on the bill of lading and not on the attachment. A prudent document examiner would know the details that usually appear on the attachment and would suspect a bill of lading that has all the details appearing on the attachment.
[edited 10/25/01 9:10:22 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
Although I agree generally with the comments made by AbdulkaderB, I would not necessarily regard an attachment as indicating "excessive details", either in the context of Article 5a i or in general terms. I have arranged shipments of over 100 TEU containers per vessel, necessitating container & seal nos. to be continued on a second page. This information was essential and could not be regarded as excessive, even though it was lengthy.
Two Queries on the B/L
GOD IS ALWAYS FAIR TO ALL PARTIES IN A FRAUD CASE
We appreciate the sense of alertness exhibited by AbdulBaker in his comments on "red flags" in documents.
From our experience in handling fraudulent bills of lading and air waybills, we come to believe firmly that God is very fair to all the parties in a fraud case. The fraudsters ALWAYS, without any exception, leave some footprints behind in the documents. The rest is only whether the document examiners in banks would have such alertness and such skills to spot those footprints.
And we are quite sure that bankers like AbdulBaker should be able to see some of those footprints.
BANKERS SHOULD KNOW MORE THAN BANKING TO PREVENT TRADE FRAUDS EFFECTIVELY
Other more sophisticated footprints can only be spotted out with more in-depth knowledge about the operations, trade practices and rules of other industries, particularly in transports.
That is why we disagree with those views held by some of our members that bankers only need to know their own business, i.e. banking and the UCP, which may not be adequate to fight against trade frauds, particularly in spotting those footprints in the transport documents.
HOW TO SURVIVE IN THE INTERACTIVE GLOBAL VILLAGE
We are now living in a Global Village and everything is interactive, brought by advancements in computer, internet, transport and telecommunication technologies. So one can no more say: "I am only a banking technician/expert/consultant and I do not need to know more than banking and UCP". Otherwise, sooner or later, he or she would be replaced with the more dynamic young ones and forced to have an early retirement. May God bless them.
We count ourselves very fortunate that we began to dwell on multimodal transport and chartering 30 years ago, at which time we never knew that it would be useful in prevention of trade frauds in DC operations.
http://www.tolee
[edited 10/26/01 5:46:14 PM]
We appreciate the sense of alertness exhibited by AbdulBaker in his comments on "red flags" in documents.
From our experience in handling fraudulent bills of lading and air waybills, we come to believe firmly that God is very fair to all the parties in a fraud case. The fraudsters ALWAYS, without any exception, leave some footprints behind in the documents. The rest is only whether the document examiners in banks would have such alertness and such skills to spot those footprints.
And we are quite sure that bankers like AbdulBaker should be able to see some of those footprints.
BANKERS SHOULD KNOW MORE THAN BANKING TO PREVENT TRADE FRAUDS EFFECTIVELY
Other more sophisticated footprints can only be spotted out with more in-depth knowledge about the operations, trade practices and rules of other industries, particularly in transports.
That is why we disagree with those views held by some of our members that bankers only need to know their own business, i.e. banking and the UCP, which may not be adequate to fight against trade frauds, particularly in spotting those footprints in the transport documents.
HOW TO SURVIVE IN THE INTERACTIVE GLOBAL VILLAGE
We are now living in a Global Village and everything is interactive, brought by advancements in computer, internet, transport and telecommunication technologies. So one can no more say: "I am only a banking technician/expert/consultant and I do not need to know more than banking and UCP". Otherwise, sooner or later, he or she would be replaced with the more dynamic young ones and forced to have an early retirement. May God bless them.
We count ourselves very fortunate that we began to dwell on multimodal transport and chartering 30 years ago, at which time we never knew that it would be useful in prevention of trade frauds in DC operations.
http://www.tolee
[edited 10/26/01 5:46:14 PM]
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
To give more insights to the discussion here, I would like to make the following remarks:
1. Commonsense is an essential part of the documents checking process. However what might be accepted for one might not be accepted for others presumably based on commonsense again. How? If the genuine linkage between the attachment and the B/L is established however, the B/L in itself satisfies the requirement of article 23 and the L/C and the attachment contains “excessive details” like container Nos., details of goods like roll size, number of pallets, shipping marks and numbers etc., however the attachment refers to:
- L/C No. 150/2001, while in B/L 105/2001
- Weight in kgs or volume 18000 / 28.000 while in certificate of weight it is 17000 / no volume indicated
- Total number of pallets is different from that indicated in the packing list.
If we assume that the issuing bank decided to reject the documents due to the above discrepancies the beneficiary or the negotiating bank could argue that based on their understanding of UCP 500 the attachment is an additional document and does not give solid grounds for rejection.
The point that I am trying to make is it enough to deal with an attachment from common sense point of view? What is the basis of acceptance or rejection to the attachment from UCP 500 perspective?
2. Now, again from commonsense point of view can a bill of lading be issued in more than one page? And if yes, for which I assume every body would say so, it should be remembered that bills of lading is construed in the same manner as other contracts.
Therefore shouldn’t we try to give a natural construction of the whole bill of lading as a contract, and try to give a meaningful effect to every individual clause it contains? Hence should we argue that any attachment to the contract should be signed, initialed, stamped or otherwise authenticated?
Of course the issue could go further, because at times the bill of lading is not in itself the contract of carriage, but only the best evidence of it, therefore "when construing the contract of carriage between the shipper (or consignee) and the carrier, it may be necessary to inquire what the actual contract between them was; merely to look at the bill of lading may not in all cases suffice". Prof William Tetley.
So commonsense although respected is a borderless issue that needs a lot of training, knowledge and dedication for which we are prepared to cherish and appreciate. That’s why I have always stressed that when Mr. Lee as well as other active contributors make a lengthy contrubitions we gain an opportunity profit not an opportunity cost.
1. Commonsense is an essential part of the documents checking process. However what might be accepted for one might not be accepted for others presumably based on commonsense again. How? If the genuine linkage between the attachment and the B/L is established however, the B/L in itself satisfies the requirement of article 23 and the L/C and the attachment contains “excessive details” like container Nos., details of goods like roll size, number of pallets, shipping marks and numbers etc., however the attachment refers to:
- L/C No. 150/2001, while in B/L 105/2001
- Weight in kgs or volume 18000 / 28.000 while in certificate of weight it is 17000 / no volume indicated
- Total number of pallets is different from that indicated in the packing list.
If we assume that the issuing bank decided to reject the documents due to the above discrepancies the beneficiary or the negotiating bank could argue that based on their understanding of UCP 500 the attachment is an additional document and does not give solid grounds for rejection.
The point that I am trying to make is it enough to deal with an attachment from common sense point of view? What is the basis of acceptance or rejection to the attachment from UCP 500 perspective?
2. Now, again from commonsense point of view can a bill of lading be issued in more than one page? And if yes, for which I assume every body would say so, it should be remembered that bills of lading is construed in the same manner as other contracts.
Therefore shouldn’t we try to give a natural construction of the whole bill of lading as a contract, and try to give a meaningful effect to every individual clause it contains? Hence should we argue that any attachment to the contract should be signed, initialed, stamped or otherwise authenticated?
Of course the issue could go further, because at times the bill of lading is not in itself the contract of carriage, but only the best evidence of it, therefore "when construing the contract of carriage between the shipper (or consignee) and the carrier, it may be necessary to inquire what the actual contract between them was; merely to look at the bill of lading may not in all cases suffice". Prof William Tetley.
So commonsense although respected is a borderless issue that needs a lot of training, knowledge and dedication for which we are prepared to cherish and appreciate. That’s why I have always stressed that when Mr. Lee as well as other active contributors make a lengthy contrubitions we gain an opportunity profit not an opportunity cost.
Two Queries on the B/L
To respond to the comments by Hatem, we have a few points to add:
(1) In a basic training session, we say a bill of lading is a contract of carriage just to suit the comprehension level of the participants who may know little about this marine transport document. We do not wish to scare them by saying that a bill of lading is not a contract of carriage or they would get confused and ask a lot of questions which are difficult to answer at this elementary stage.
(2) In a more advanced training, we will say that a bill of lading is not a contract of carriage. It is only an evidence that a contract (of carriage) exists amongst the parties. This is from the dictum of a famous maritime precedent case in England. We have to search our private library to find out the name of this case but we cannot go this far as we are now handling two DC dispute cases and the lawyers are chasing for completion of our reports. So you have to trust us for this.
(3) A bill of lading may have as many pages as one needs. There is no rule or convention to stop this. This is again common sense on “freedom to contract” or according to the “lex mercatoria” (law based on merchant practice).
(4) How common sense should be applied in examination of documents? This is also a common sense issue by itself. Common sense includes, but not limited to, sound business sense.
(5) Thanks Hatem for your kind words on those, including ourselves, who contribute actively to the DC Pro. In fact, we do have some fringe benefits out of this. We receive a lot of emails from members privately to thank us since they are aware that some members may be sensitive to this sort of message, as evidenced by their past postings. One member even offers himself to do the proof reading for our past postings in the DC Pro as well as in our website voluntarily and we are deeply grateful to him.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/27/01 4:45:00 PM]
(1) In a basic training session, we say a bill of lading is a contract of carriage just to suit the comprehension level of the participants who may know little about this marine transport document. We do not wish to scare them by saying that a bill of lading is not a contract of carriage or they would get confused and ask a lot of questions which are difficult to answer at this elementary stage.
(2) In a more advanced training, we will say that a bill of lading is not a contract of carriage. It is only an evidence that a contract (of carriage) exists amongst the parties. This is from the dictum of a famous maritime precedent case in England. We have to search our private library to find out the name of this case but we cannot go this far as we are now handling two DC dispute cases and the lawyers are chasing for completion of our reports. So you have to trust us for this.
(3) A bill of lading may have as many pages as one needs. There is no rule or convention to stop this. This is again common sense on “freedom to contract” or according to the “lex mercatoria” (law based on merchant practice).
(4) How common sense should be applied in examination of documents? This is also a common sense issue by itself. Common sense includes, but not limited to, sound business sense.
(5) Thanks Hatem for your kind words on those, including ourselves, who contribute actively to the DC Pro. In fact, we do have some fringe benefits out of this. We receive a lot of emails from members privately to thank us since they are aware that some members may be sensitive to this sort of message, as evidenced by their past postings. One member even offers himself to do the proof reading for our past postings in the DC Pro as well as in our website voluntarily and we are deeply grateful to him.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/27/01 4:45:00 PM]