ICC Digital Library Forum

Hi all,

If the L/C states Forwarder's Bill of Lading not acceptable even if signed as carrier, I think the following bills of lading shall not be accepted:

1) B/L titled “FBL” or “FIATA BILL OF LADING” or similar expressions (inspite of the nature "however named" of B/L).

2) B/L signed by the party whose name shows the issuing/signing party as a freight forwarder.
Ex: ABC Forwarder Co., Ltd.

3) B/L signed by a freight forwarder in the capacity of the carrier.
Ex: ABC Forwarder Co., Ltd
As Carrier

4) B/L signed by a freight forwarder in the capacity of agent for the carrier.
Ex: ABC Forwarder Co., Ltd
As Agent for the Carrier: XYZ Shipping Co., Ltd

If the bill of lading contains no information (e.g., as above) showing that it is issued/signed by a freight forwarder, the document checkers are not responsible to check and determine whether or not the party issuing or signing the bill of lading is a freight forwarder, even when they know for sure that the issuing/signing party is indeed a freight forwarder.

Best regards,
N.H. Duc


[edited 8/7/2009 2:50:49 PM]

N.H.Duc,

It makes sense but be that as it may, If I receive a DC with such a condition, I will ask the IB to be more specific.
Regards

Daniel

This subject matter is of ‘interest’ to me as it was me personally that raised issue no. 1 in Opinion R562 / TA572. As is not unusual the Commission did not address the specific matters raised, i.e.
(1) if ‘the bank was correct to refuse the transport document for the reason given’ (namely that the documentary credit stipulated separately "Transport document issued by Freight Forwarder not acceptable" and the transport document presented was titled "FBL BIFA Negotiable FIATA Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading" and signed by the issuer, "as carrier") and:
(2) if ‘as a general principle, wherever there appears to be conflict between an express term of a credit and a provision of UCP, the express term of the credit shall prevail’.

As an aside I have to say I find it odd that an applicant or issuing bank would be concerned by a ‘freight forwarder’ signing as agent for a carrier, as the contract of carriage would be with the carrier and not the ‘freight forwarder’. Therefore, to me, it is only logical to concern oneself with the carrier possibly not owning the carrying vessel, plane etc and nothing more. However, I appreciate that logic is frequently absent in documentary credit operations.

Anyway, where a credit excludes the carrier being a ‘freight forwarder’ my opinion is that this overrides 14(l) and if on the basis of the documents alone, the documents appear on their face -when examined in accordance with UCP600- to indicate that the carrier is a ‘freight forwarder’ the documents are discrepant even if the provisions of the relevant transport article have been met.


[edited 8/19/2009 11:46:32 AM]

Jeps – a really fantastic topic. I was just presented with an LC which – after describing the required B/L – had the following wording:

“ORIGINAL B/L NOT HOUSE B/L ISSUED BY OWNER NOT BROKER”

Again – how to interpret such? In line with TA572? – or must the B/L issuer show that they are in fact the owner?

Hmmmm

Best regards
Kim

Its acceptable, provided that it should meet the requirement of UCP article 20. For eg: ABC forwarders as carrier.

Kim,

Again, do not try to interpret; it is time consuming and maybe time wasting. Ask IB. If ABs, NBs asked more often for clarification, the world would turn a great deal faster as would say the Queen (the one in Alice in Wonderland)
Regards
Daniel