Artile 27

Shahed · Post by **Shahed** » Thu May 14, 2009 1:00 am

L/C states - Bill of Lading must be marked "clean of board".

Do we need the word "clean" to be appeared on the B/L as the L/C used the word marked ?

Shahed

ThuHoangAnh_ · Post by **ThuHoangAnh_** » Thu May 14, 2009 1:00 am

Hi,

With or without the word “CLEAN" does not make the B/L unclean or claused unless the B/L specifically bears a clause or notation declaring that the goods or packaging are detective.

Despite required by L/C, the B/L presented without indicating the word “CLEAN" would not constitute a valid discrepancy that leads to a refusal.

If the applicant, for some reason, wants the B/L to be marked with this word, he should emphasize this requirement in Field 47A (additional conditions) that B/L presented without indicating the word "CLEAN" or "CLEAN SHIPPED ON BOARD” will be deemed to be discrepant

Best regards,
Nguyen Huu Duc

[edited 5/14/2009 6:13:39 PM]

TanKokBoon · Post by **TanKokBoon** » Thu May 14, 2009 1:00 am

The fact here is that UCP does not require the word 'clean' to appear on the bill of lading refer to sub-article 27 which provides a definition of a clean bill of lading and clearly states the word clean need not appear on a BL even if Credit requires to be "clean on board' . Well most carrier and it's agent will not allow the the word "clean" to appear on the BL as it has a different meaning to shipping industry than it does under UCP.

jsheehan · Post by **jsheehan** » Thu May 14, 2009 1:00 am

It is clear from the UCP that the BL does not have to be marked "clean" it just has to be "clean". A request from an applicant to specifically require a BL to be marked "clean" is meaningless and should not be accepted by an issuing bank. To do so opens the door to have a BL marked "clean" but by its content is not clean.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Fri May 15, 2009 1:00 am

The UCP cannot override an express provision of the credit (I of course recognise the interpretative impact of 14(h)).

It is not for banks to refuse requests from applicants that do not cause the banks any difficulties.

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Sat May 16, 2009 1:00 am

Hi Jermey, In this case the UCP can and does override the LC. One of the UCP 600 changes was: "The word "clean" need not appear on a transport document, even if a credit has a requirement for that transport document to be "clean on board"."
It is not a discrepancy. Best Regards

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon May 18, 2009 1:00 am

Glenn,

This credit goes beyond merely ‘having a requirement for [the] transport document to be “clean on board”’. (Such a requirement would be e.g. ‘Clean on board bills of lading made out to order …’ etc.) Based on what the first posting says there is an express requirement in the credit that these words actually appear on the transport document. So Article 27 is not applicable.

Regards, Jeremy

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Mon May 18, 2009 1:00 am

Dear all,

See THE Commentary page 127:
Commentary 2nd paragraph
Regards
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon May 18, 2009 1:00 am

Thanks Daniel, appreciated. I have to say I find it extraordinary that the drafters could apparently think that:
1. this article applies where ‘the credit … call a … [bill of lading] marked “clean on board”’ as I see nothing in its wording to justify such a view. Yet another example of the UCP being read on the basis of what people want it to say rather than what it actually says?
2. the UCP could possibly override the express provisions of a credit, however pointless / difficult to fulfil they may apparently appear.
Suffice it to say, I stand by my views.

[edited 5/18/2009 4:45:59 PM]

RobReissner · Post by **RobReissner** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:00 am

As I have not had the time to read the discussions earlier, my reply comes rather late. However, I want to add that I understand Jeremy's opinion that an applicant might want to have an explicit condition in the credit. Art. 27 is clearly drafted, the wording "clean (on board)" needs not to appear on the transport document. Not even if the credit bears a requirement to that effect. So, if applicant would want to overrule that, art. 27 should be excluded (art. 1 of the UCP 600 refers) to make it work. In my personal view banks should discourage exclusion of UCP articles and carefully consider the consequences of any exclusion.

Regards,

Rob