ICC Digital Library Forum

Dear Tanja,

I do not think, it is that hard to compare the two sub-articles mentioned.
- For the CMR (or CIM for that matter) it is the date of issuance that is deemed to be shipment date – unless the document contains a so-called reception stamp (!!).
- For the AWB it is also the date of issuance that is deemed shipment date, unless the L/C requires an “actual date of dispatch”!

Now – I am sorry that it is me that must take the role as grumpy old man – but once again I must say: Don’t go there!
Sub-article 27,a,iii must be the product of a drafting error. I will take it that everyone would agree with you on your last sentence – but you should take into account what the rules says. They are pretty clear on this one. This also explains ISBP paragraph 151.

Best regards
Kim

Kim,

I am not giving up!

I was going through the draft of new UCP 600 – the completed draft that is going to be discussed on the next ICC meeting, and one paragraph of the article says that a road, rail or inland waterway transport document, however named, must appear to:
QUOTE
...indicate the date of shipment or that the goods have been received for shipment, dispatch or carriage. Unless the transport document contains a reception stamp, indication of receipt or date of shipment, the date of issuance will be deemed to be the date of shipment.
UNQUOTE

If this paragraph is going to be accepted, we will finally have clear situation. The question is what shall we do until then? Probably survive as we did last 10 years with UCP 500!

Tanja

Tanja,

Don’t worry. I am sure we will survive

Have a nice weekend.

Kim