ICC Digital Library Forum

As Abdulkader I also see the issue above as a bit different. It is rather issue of the applicable B/E law. Acc. to Geneva convention the maturity of the B/E must be determinable from the face of the B/E itself. So the specification "xxx days after B/L date" without actually mentioning the date on the B/E would not fulfil this condition.

Pavel Andrle

The argument here is how should the phrase “x days from bill of lading date” be construed. Is it from the on board date if the bill of lading is so? Is it from received for shipment date or from the issuance date?

The problem of such interpretation does not arise if the bill of lading is dated as issued on xx days and the on board notation is pr-printed wording. However what if
1. Bill of lading is dated (in the issue box) 15/01/2002 on board notation 18/01/2002
2. Received for shipment 15/01/2002 on board notation 18/01/2002
3. Only on board notation 15/01/2002
4. Like in this query: Received for shipment 20/01/2002 on board notation 15/01/2002.

Sometimes we encounter credits stipulating “negotiation of document maximum 21 days from bill of lading date”. In this case would negotiation be compliant calculated from the on board notation date if:
1. Bill of lading is dated (in the issue box) 5/01/2002 on board notation 9/01/2002. Negotiation took place on 27/01/2002?

Although from my experience, the banks I used to work for the calculation was done based on the issuance date and not on board date, but now when I further contemplate on this issue, I feel that this phrase could still entail a great deal of ambiguity as to whether it is the issuance date or the on board date, although I am more for the issuance date since bill of lading in itself is a “contract of carriage” designed to evidence a documentary proof of what has been agreed between the tow parties ; shipper and carrier and this documents is dated like any other agreement or documents. The on board notation is a stipulation, a term in that agreement like any other terms and conditions evidencing that the carrier has took delivery of the goods and undertakes to ship them to the destination port as specified in the B/L. Of course in the absence of such issuance date, like in scenario 2,3 and for I still think that 2: calculation from received for shipment, 3: on board date is the issuance date by default, 4: received for shipment date.

Just think what does an on board mean? "On Board" means that the Goods have been received by the Carrier and placed on board a truck, rail car, barge, vessel or other means to be used to transport the Goods sated in the B/L. Then why would the carrier state two dates on for received for shipment and the other on board vessel? Why would UCP refer to two distinct dates; “issuance date” and “on board date” and not B/L date, unless these dates are peculiar and may differ?

The concern of article 23 (aii) is make sure that the goods are shipped on board to comply with the shipment date in the credit as well as for the calculation of presentation date and not the calculation of maturity date.

I am still open for new ideas and counter-interpretations.

I quote from the draft of "International Standard Banking Practice" distributed before ICC banking commission meeting at Paris, 16-17 May 2001 - Draft and calculation of maturity section:" If the tenor refers to xxx days after the bill of lading date, the on board date is deemed to be the bill of lading date". (Document 470/951). I, as the authors of the draft and some participans in our forum, believe that this is international standard banking practice.

Pavel Andrle

Mr. Pavel

Would that mean in case of two dates appearing on the bill of lading, the calculation will be from the on board date?
What if the bill of lading is received for shipment? How do you calculate?

Remember, in the discussion forum, we should not just quote, we should also explain as this is for discussion then viewers will be able to contemplate more scenarios and this will help them either reinforce their opinions or take another stance on the subject matter.

Mr. Pavel's comments are very interesting. I thought, absent of any official definition of the expression "bill of lading date", we should stick to its literal meaning which I always took it as the date of issuance of the bill of lading. It is good to hear that ICC is taking care of it through the "International Standard Banking Practice".

On the other hand, I have made some work on this issue to find out how banks calculate the maturity date when the LC stipulates payment date as x-days from bill of lading date. In almost all the documents that I have reviewed, the maturity date is calculated from the date of issuance of the bill of lading. In one or two cases where the bank calculated the date from the shipment date (on board date), I have noted that a discrepancy telexes were sent but the negotiating banks did not object to them. The difference was either three or four days in favour of the applicant or the beneficiary depending on whether the on board date was after the issuance date of B/L or before the issuance date of B/L.

I have also noted that when the date of issuance of bill of lading is not mentioned, the B/L date is taken as either the "on board date" or the "received for shipment date". I have not encountered a bill of lading that indicates both "received for shipment date" and the "on board date".
[edited 2/4/02 7:32:02 PM]

B/L date does not exist !!!

For convenience, we are all guilty of referring to a B/L as having a B/L date, but who can point to a B/L indicating "B/L date XXXXXX" ?

In practice, dates incorporated into Bs/L include "Received for shipment date", Date of issue/issuance", Shipped on board/Loaded on board Date". There is never a "B/L date". Therefore how are we to define a B/L date when so indicated in an L/C ? As Pavel has already indicated, the correct interpretation should be the Shipped on Board Date. The reason for this is that this is the only critical date. The requirement for latest shipment date is determined by this. When payment is determined by "B/L date", this is the date to be used. Other dates are arbitrary. Some participants may remember earlier versions of the UCP which permitted "Received for Shipment" Bs/L without indicating "Shipped on Board". Recent versions of UCP have deliberately moved away from this so that by default only an on board B/L is now acceptable. This again emphasises the importance of the on board notation in the case of Received for shipment Bs/L.

It is understandable for those not involved in the shipping industry to be confused by the above dates, especially the "Date of Issue". Bankers tend to read too much into this date. It might be clearer if this was called "Date of Printing". Thus this date may be before, on, or after the date of loading and DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE A DISCREPANCY WHEN DATED AFTER. All carriers base their practice on goods being booked in advance of loading. This usually permits them, if they so wish, to print the B/L before shipment as it will only be lacking the on board notation which can be added later. Other carriers take the view that they prefer to await the sailing of the vessel before printing the B/L. Thus if a vessel sails late on a Friday, the B/L may not be printed/issued until Monday at the earliest. It is not unusual for such issue/printing to take another couple of days.

In cases where transhipment is involved, the carrier may prefer to await the sailing of the second vessel and incorporation of these details before issuing the B/L. I have deliberately avoided using words such as Pre-carriage Vessel and Ocean or Mother Vessel, because these may be misleading.

I hope that I have not shocked too many people by my initial cheeky and inflammatory remark which was intended to provoke debate rather than cross swords with anyone.

Laurence

After coming back to Toronto from Asia, we are extremely busy in preparation of a few court cases as an expert witness and handouts for a series of workshops held overseas in the next couple of months. Hence we cannot contribute in the otherwise very interesting topics here. We even have no time to look over all the comments.

However, when we are free again, which may be a couple of weeks or months later, we would join again.

We have to fly again on Chinese New Year Day - Tuesday 12th February 2002 - to find our rice and noodles.

http://www.tolee.com

T.O.

Welcome back. Is there any oriental significance in you starting the Chinese New Year of the horse by travelling ?

Laurence

Laurence,

According to Chinese horoscope, people who are born in the year of the horse have to be careful in 2002 - the year of the horse, due to "conflicts - a horse (person) meets another horse (year)" according to generalised fung shui concepts. That does not mean that a specific person may not be even better in 2002, all depending on whether he is having good luck or bad luck this year. To every rule, there is always an exception.

Although I am a rabbit, I do run and work like a horse in 2002.

To satisfy your curiosity, for Chinese who believe in luck, it is important for one to go for the right direction when one makes his first journey out of one's home during the Chinese New Year day. There are different directions: for wealth, longevity, power or romance. That means one cannot take all directions to have them all.

T. O.

[edited 2/7/02 3:37:02 AM]

Please refer to an apparently unpublished opinion in doc470/GE64 dd June 27. 1996 about the meaning of the expression "B/L date" where the conclusion reads "For the purpose of fixing the maturity date of a draft to be drawn under a credit which stipulates such draft to be drawn "x days after B/L date" the date of the on board notation, if any, should be considered "the B/L date" irrespective of whether the date of the on board notation is later or earlier than the date of issuance of the bill of lading.