In a LC, under 47A additional conds stated " SHIPMENT MUST BE EFFECTED THROUGH BELOW LISTED SHIPPING LINES WITH 14 DAYS FREE DEMURRAGE AND DETENTION. "
A set of b/l presented issued by one of the listed shipping lines, but without indicating "14 days free demurrage and detention".
Can i have all your views, pls.
Thank you.
Yat
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
Yat,
According to UCP you may disregard this 14 days stuff. That said it is (psychologically?) uncomfortable to disregard a NDC. When faced with such a clause, better go back to the issuer to find out how to check it.
Regards
Daniel
According to UCP you may disregard this 14 days stuff. That said it is (psychologically?) uncomfortable to disregard a NDC. When faced with such a clause, better go back to the issuer to find out how to check it.
Regards
Daniel
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
I strongly disagree that these are non-documentary conditions. It is clear they specific stipulated requirements of the issuing bank and should be evident from the bill of lading.
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
I disagree with the disagreement.
For obvious reasons (20a, 14d, 644 (rev)), the shipping line is not a problem. It is different with the 14 days.
Daniel
For obvious reasons (20a, 14d, 644 (rev)), the shipping line is not a problem. It is different with the 14 days.
Daniel
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
I agree with your disagreement Daniel!
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
What is the basis for treating the listed carrier condition and/or the 14 day free demurrage condition as nondocumentary (or as documentary)?
What is the basis for treating the usual goods description as a documentary condition where it appears in a field different from the field listing the required document(s)?
Are these determinations based on a literal or flexible reading of UCP? on isbp?
Everybody has long agreed that the NDC rule is intended to keep banks from determining whether the carrier is in fact a listed one, or a 14 day free period is in fact applicable or the goods are in fact as described. But why is there still so much confusion about whether and how to relate conditions in an LC to one or more of the documents required in the LC?
Regards, Jim Barnes
What is the basis for treating the usual goods description as a documentary condition where it appears in a field different from the field listing the required document(s)?
Are these determinations based on a literal or flexible reading of UCP? on isbp?
Everybody has long agreed that the NDC rule is intended to keep banks from determining whether the carrier is in fact a listed one, or a 14 day free period is in fact applicable or the goods are in fact as described. But why is there still so much confusion about whether and how to relate conditions in an LC to one or more of the documents required in the LC?
Regards, Jim Barnes
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
Questions, questions, questions, Jim.
If I ever find a spare couple of hours I'll post a reply.
If I ever find a spare couple of hours I'll post a reply.
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
M. Barnes,
I think M. Roy Goode once wrote about NDC:" though the objective is laudable, I suspect that the cure may prove worse than the desease".
Jeremy,
Looking forward to your reply.
Daniel
I think M. Roy Goode once wrote about NDC:" though the objective is laudable, I suspect that the cure may prove worse than the desease".
Jeremy,
Looking forward to your reply.
Daniel
-
GlennRansier_
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
I believe that both aspects of the condition must be satisfied by the relative transport document. It is a single combined condition. It would be difficult to cite this particular example as "non documentary" when it clearly relates to the transport document in much the same manner as when a LC states: "Shipment from US Port to UK Port". I agree there is "grey" when determining if something is "non documentary" and that opinions will vary. However, unlike a simple non documentary statement similar to: "Beneficiary must send copies of all documents to applicant" in which the LC never required a bene. statement, in this example, a transport document is required and you have admitted ensuring that the carrier is one of those permitted by the LC. As such, I do not believe that you can now disregard the balance of the same requirement.
NON DOCUMENTARY CONDITION ?
Glen,
The concept of ‘linkage’ in relation to NDCs that existed under UCP500, as set out in Position Paper 3, does not apply under UCP600. By virtue of the relevant transport article (e.g. 20(a)(i)) the carrier must automatically appear on the transport document, therefore ‘SHIPMENT MUST BE EFFECTED THROUGH BELOW LISTED SHIPPING LINES’ is not a NDC. However, there is not any UCP600 requirement for ‘WITH 14 DAYS FREE DEMURRAGE AND DETENTION’ to appear on the transport document. As the concept of ‘linkage’, in respect of NDCs, has no application under UCP600 ‘WITH 14 DAYS FREE DEMURRAGE AND DETENTION’ is a NDC.
The only reason one checks ports of loading and discharge is because this is required by the relevant transport article (e.g. 20(a)(iii)).
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 3/20/2009 10:25:29 AM]
The concept of ‘linkage’ in relation to NDCs that existed under UCP500, as set out in Position Paper 3, does not apply under UCP600. By virtue of the relevant transport article (e.g. 20(a)(i)) the carrier must automatically appear on the transport document, therefore ‘SHIPMENT MUST BE EFFECTED THROUGH BELOW LISTED SHIPPING LINES’ is not a NDC. However, there is not any UCP600 requirement for ‘WITH 14 DAYS FREE DEMURRAGE AND DETENTION’ to appear on the transport document. As the concept of ‘linkage’, in respect of NDCs, has no application under UCP600 ‘WITH 14 DAYS FREE DEMURRAGE AND DETENTION’ is a NDC.
The only reason one checks ports of loading and discharge is because this is required by the relevant transport article (e.g. 20(a)(iii)).
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 3/20/2009 10:25:29 AM]