L/C is asking for full set of Shipped on Board Bill of Lading. Additional condition states Combined Transport Bill of Lading is allowed.
Port of Loading: Canada
Port of Discharge: Bangladesh
Beneficiary submit the Bill of Lading (without showing whether it is Maltimodal or Marine B/L) showing Place of receipt: Calgary, Port of Loading Vancouver and Port of Discharge/Place of Delivery: Bangladesh. It also shows name of vessel Hanjin Washington.
B/L include Laden on Board the vessel notation with date 07 xx 2008.
It may be mentioned that there is no sea in Calgary.
My questions are
1] whether this is a Multimodal B/L and to be checked as per Article 19 though L/C is asking for port to port B/L.
2]whether Laden on Board notation should include the name of the Port of Loading and the name of vessel.
3]How to define the Multimodal B/L.
(As per ICC opinion TA635 rev Query 3 it seems this is a Marine B/L then it should be checked as per Article 20. However as per ICC opinion TA629 it seems to be a Multimodal B/L).
Let me have your valuable comments on the above.
Regards,
Shahed
Toronto
Multimodal B/L
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Multimodal B/L
Dear Shaheed,
Good question indeed
In structure the LC seems to be somewhat identical to the scenario in TA.629. That one basically ruled the LC ambiguous: You can not (under the regime of UCP 600) have a multimodal transport document that covers a port-to-port shipment. Therefore the first point made here should be that the issuing bank should be contacted for clarification.
I would take the stand that:
1)
If the document – as is the case here - shows that goods are taken in charge at a PLACE in Canada – NOT showing only one mode of transport – the basis for the examination should be article 19.
(Notwithstanding that it ALSO shows a Canadian port)
2)
If the document shows that the goods are shipped from a PORT in Canada (NOT showing a PLACE of taken in charge in Canada in addition to the PORT) – then (according to TA.650rev) a dated on board notation is required, and if
- “Bangladesh” is mentioned as a “PLACE” – then article 19 would apply, but if
- “Bangladesh” is mentioned as a “PORT” – then article 20 would apply.
(Of course the actual port/place (as the case may be) must be mentioned).
Therefore in this case I would go for article 19 – but it seems to me (depending on the onboard notation) that for this particular case it does not really matter (but I can not say exactly based on the information given).
As for TA.635rev, Q3 I only consider this one partly relevant here, as it covers an LC calling for a bill of lading subject to article 20 (i.e. not allowing for a combined transport document). This opinion would be applicable to this case where a bill of lading is presented – e.g. showing shipment from a Canadian PORT to a Bangladesh PORT – but ALSO including a PLACE of receipt (in this case a non-Canadian PLACE) prior to the port of loading.
In such case the last paragraph of UCP 500 sub-article 23(a)(ii) as well as ISBP (2003) paragraph 82 would apply
Best regards
Kim
Good question indeed
In structure the LC seems to be somewhat identical to the scenario in TA.629. That one basically ruled the LC ambiguous: You can not (under the regime of UCP 600) have a multimodal transport document that covers a port-to-port shipment. Therefore the first point made here should be that the issuing bank should be contacted for clarification.
I would take the stand that:
1)
If the document – as is the case here - shows that goods are taken in charge at a PLACE in Canada – NOT showing only one mode of transport – the basis for the examination should be article 19.
(Notwithstanding that it ALSO shows a Canadian port)
2)
If the document shows that the goods are shipped from a PORT in Canada (NOT showing a PLACE of taken in charge in Canada in addition to the PORT) – then (according to TA.650rev) a dated on board notation is required, and if
- “Bangladesh” is mentioned as a “PLACE” – then article 19 would apply, but if
- “Bangladesh” is mentioned as a “PORT” – then article 20 would apply.
(Of course the actual port/place (as the case may be) must be mentioned).
Therefore in this case I would go for article 19 – but it seems to me (depending on the onboard notation) that for this particular case it does not really matter (but I can not say exactly based on the information given).
As for TA.635rev, Q3 I only consider this one partly relevant here, as it covers an LC calling for a bill of lading subject to article 20 (i.e. not allowing for a combined transport document). This opinion would be applicable to this case where a bill of lading is presented – e.g. showing shipment from a Canadian PORT to a Bangladesh PORT – but ALSO including a PLACE of receipt (in this case a non-Canadian PLACE) prior to the port of loading.
In such case the last paragraph of UCP 500 sub-article 23(a)(ii) as well as ISBP (2003) paragraph 82 would apply
Best regards
Kim
Multimodal B/L
“You can not (under the regime of UCP 600) have a multimodal transport document that covers a port-to-port shipment.”
Dear Mr Christensen
I am not sure I understand the above comment.
It is very common practice from my experience for a Combined Transport Bill of Lading (CTBL/MMTD) to be issued covering a Port to Port Shipment.
Sometimes the Combined Transport Bill of Lading will also include places named in boxes ‘Place of Receipt’ and ‘Place of Final Destination’ and sometimes not. Most often yes.
My view is that if an LC calls for Bill of Lading but also allows for presentation of a Combined Transport Bill of Lading, then the beneficiary can present either one.
In some instances, such as the one in this question it can happen that it is difficult to determine if the document is actually a Bill of Lading or a Combined Transport Bill of Lading.
In my view the bank can in this particular case examine the transport document presented under either article 19 or 20 as the LC permitted presentation of either one and then logically under the ‘however named’ rule which is applicable to Article 19 and Article 20 of UCP 600.
This is an interesting question on an area that has got very complicated.
Svetlana
Dear Mr Christensen
I am not sure I understand the above comment.
It is very common practice from my experience for a Combined Transport Bill of Lading (CTBL/MMTD) to be issued covering a Port to Port Shipment.
Sometimes the Combined Transport Bill of Lading will also include places named in boxes ‘Place of Receipt’ and ‘Place of Final Destination’ and sometimes not. Most often yes.
My view is that if an LC calls for Bill of Lading but also allows for presentation of a Combined Transport Bill of Lading, then the beneficiary can present either one.
In some instances, such as the one in this question it can happen that it is difficult to determine if the document is actually a Bill of Lading or a Combined Transport Bill of Lading.
In my view the bank can in this particular case examine the transport document presented under either article 19 or 20 as the LC permitted presentation of either one and then logically under the ‘however named’ rule which is applicable to Article 19 and Article 20 of UCP 600.
This is an interesting question on an area that has got very complicated.
Svetlana
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Multimodal B/L
Dear Svetlana,
First of all; I normally do not respond to ”Mr. Christensen” – but in this case I will do an exception … “Kim” will do just fine
Secondly – you are quite right in fact – but you are mixing transport practice with banking practice. When I said “under the regime of UCP 600” I was only aiming at banking practice.
Forgetting about the specific question (trying not to complicate things more than it has to be) – I see this as follows:
When an LC (as is often the case) calls for a “bill of lading” – then it is actually mainly a pointer towards article 20 i.e. saying that the document must be examined according to that article. This one is (as you mention) a port-to-port document and does (as you also mention) include the so-called “however named principle”.
This means that the document presented must comply with article 20 – but need not have the title “Bill of lading”. It may be titled “multimodal bill of lading” or similar, BUT such document (assuming it complies with article 20) is NOT a multimodal transport document from the perspective of the banker! Such IS a bill of lading (subject to article 20).
(This is why I say that you can not have a Multimodal transport document covering a port-to-port shipment)
Of course the transport industry views this differently: A Multimodal bill of lading IS a Multimodal transport bill of lading (if fact even if it covers only one mode of transport).
Bear in mind also the ports/places on the document vis-à-vis the documentary credit.
The main issue for the banker examining a document according to article 20 is that it “indicate shipment from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the credit”. There may in fact be a (non-sea) leg before or after the journey indicated in the LC. Such would for the transport industry be regarded as a multimodal transport – but for the banker still a bill of lading – showing a port-to-port transport!
I guess this is surely one area where the LC world have successfully managed to make this very complicate for themselves
Best regards
Kim
First of all; I normally do not respond to ”Mr. Christensen” – but in this case I will do an exception … “Kim” will do just fine
Secondly – you are quite right in fact – but you are mixing transport practice with banking practice. When I said “under the regime of UCP 600” I was only aiming at banking practice.
Forgetting about the specific question (trying not to complicate things more than it has to be) – I see this as follows:
When an LC (as is often the case) calls for a “bill of lading” – then it is actually mainly a pointer towards article 20 i.e. saying that the document must be examined according to that article. This one is (as you mention) a port-to-port document and does (as you also mention) include the so-called “however named principle”.
This means that the document presented must comply with article 20 – but need not have the title “Bill of lading”. It may be titled “multimodal bill of lading” or similar, BUT such document (assuming it complies with article 20) is NOT a multimodal transport document from the perspective of the banker! Such IS a bill of lading (subject to article 20).
(This is why I say that you can not have a Multimodal transport document covering a port-to-port shipment)
Of course the transport industry views this differently: A Multimodal bill of lading IS a Multimodal transport bill of lading (if fact even if it covers only one mode of transport).
Bear in mind also the ports/places on the document vis-à-vis the documentary credit.
The main issue for the banker examining a document according to article 20 is that it “indicate shipment from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the credit”. There may in fact be a (non-sea) leg before or after the journey indicated in the LC. Such would for the transport industry be regarded as a multimodal transport – but for the banker still a bill of lading – showing a port-to-port transport!
I guess this is surely one area where the LC world have successfully managed to make this very complicate for themselves
Best regards
Kim