ICC Digital Library Forum

Dear PhanThanhNhan,
ISBP clearly states under art.76 "...and the name of the carrier must appear on the face of the b/l,identified as the carrier".
The capacity of each entity of whose name appears on the face of a b/l, must be identified.
under documentary credits,as a checker, you are not allowed to presume something. you must be 100% sure of what you check and the interpretation you give.
you cannot say "well,since the b/l has a shipping company's name preprinted with beautiful colors on the top right side, i presume is the carrier's name."
ISBP art.76 clearly answer to you issue.each part's capacity must be identified.
UCP600 clearly states under art.20 "any signature by the carrier, master or agent must be identified as that of the carrier,master or agent". when saying "identified as that of the..." in my opinion refers not only to the name of the entity but also to the capacity of that entity.
regards,
bogdan.

PhanThanhNhan,

Based on PP4, such a B/L would definitely not comply with sub-Article 23(a)(i). See in particular ‘example’ 3(a).

Whether one would be able to successfully argue, as you seem to be, in a court of law that PP4, and all subsequent ICC documents that reflect it (opinions and ISBP), are wrong in interpreting sub-Article 23(a)(i) as actually requiring the word ‘carrier’ to be present on the front of the document is not a matter on which I would like to opine.

Judith,

Sorry if I am being a bit thick, but I cannot see why it is a ‘fear’ for you. If the master signs only as "master of MV ..." and the name of the carrier is not indicated as being the carrier somewhere else, this -to me- is clearly discrepant under 500 or 600. Therefore, there cannot (famous last words) be any risk of dispute as to the non-compliance of such a document.

Regards, Jeremy

[edited 11/1/2006 9:55:26 AM]

Despite the requirement in ISBP, I believe, except where it (B/L) is signed by the carrier, it is not the industry practice to always identify a carrier with the expression as carrier against its name.

I believe this was specifically discussed during the revision of UCP.

regards
Abdulkader
[edited 11/1/2006 6:45:23 PM]