ICC Digital Library Forum

Hi all,

so now I give it a second try to get any idea and/or experiences from you regarding the following problem:

Bill of lading under L/C was presented and showed all contents as per L/C requirement as well as it was issued in accordance with UCP 600.

The text field in the middle of the B/L (as most of the B/L's have such a field) is defined to have only goods description, marks and numbers, container numbers and weights as content. Within this field there is on the bottom also this wording preprinted:

Above particulars as declared by Shipper, but without responsibility of or representation by the Carrier (see clause 8).
(For your information clause 8 on the back of the B/L is concerns only to the description, quantity and quality of the goods).

Unfortunately the on-board remark was printed within that field by the carrier, but without authentication by the carrier which is not necessary as per UCP.

Now the paying bank determined as discrepancy: on-board remark not signed by the carrier following their argumentation that the on-board remark was printed within that field, but the preprinting on the bottom says that there is no responsibility on carriers party (as mentioned above).

Would you give me please your suggestions, as my suggestions are:

+ The definition of the field does not include the on-board remark or other remarks by the carrier and is only defined for kind and quantity of goods and packages
+ There is no rule where on B/L a on-board remark should be printed.
+ Stamp and sign by the carrier to authenticate the on-board remark is not covered by the UCP.

Therefore the discrepancy might be not valid.

Thank you in advance for your suggestions.

Best regards
Stephan

Presuming the LC required a UCP Article 20 type of BL, the requirements per UCP are:
"- an on board notation indicating the date on which the goods have been shipped on board.

The date of issuance of the bill of lading will be deemed to be the date of shipment unless the bill of lading contains an on board notation indicating the date of shipment, in which case the date stated in the on board notation will be deemed to be the date of shipment. "

So if the OB notation meets these requirements there is no discrepancy.
The fact that the carrier bears no responsibility for the goods description is always understood. Carrier's are not inspection companies. Additionally UCP allows transport document statements such as "shippers load, count and stow", etc. This is no discrepancy based on what is being represented.

This is NOT a discrepancy. ICC Opinion Document 470/TA.681rev directly addresses this: The UCP does not require a goods description to appear on any document other than the invoice (sub-article 14 (e) refers). However, it is transport industry practice that a form of description will appear and that description should not conflict with the description in the credit.

The wording quoted on the bill of lading i.e., “and is not part of the BL” is seen as being similar to terms quoted in article 26 i.e., ‘shipper’s load and count’ and ‘said by shipper to contain’.