In small print the clause is on the front of the b/l as: "If requied by carrier, this B/L duly endored must be surrenderedin exchange for the goods or delivery order". Is it discrepancy? when the issuing bank assume "B/L authorizes the carrier to release the goods without surrender of any original B/L if carrier doesnot so require."
In my opinion, issuing bank deduced unreasonably which they should check docs on its face. Also understand that "if carrier doesnot require, full set must be presented" . Pls comment!!!!!!!!Tks
CLAUSE ON B/L
-
THI THUY MYT_
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
-
GlennRansier_
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
CLAUSE ON B/L
There was a recent ICC opinion discussed in Dubai that stated that banks are not responsible for a BL's terms and conditions, even those stated on their face. This clause would fall under that. The carrier has liabilities and legal rights and concerns of there own and banks cannot dictate terms to each carrier. Based on the details provided, I do not believe that this is a discrepancy.
CLAUSE ON B/L
TTM,
You do not say if the credit contained provisions regarding the terms and conditions of the bills of lading presented. Therefore, it is unclear to me if the refusal was based on the express terms of the credit or some other basis.
The opinion Glenn refers to is 470/TA.675rev. As I have a summary (I prepared for internal use) that I can ‘copy & paste’ I reproduce the summary below.
‘The Credit concerned stated:
BILLS OF LADING THAT ON THEIR FACE INDICATE THAT GOODS MAY BE RELEASED WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF AN ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The bills of lading presented included a lengthy (349 words) paragraph on its front which included the following:
“SHIPPED, as far as ascertained reasonable means of checking, in apparent good order … Where the bill of lading is non-negotiable, the Carrier may give delivery of the Goods to the named consignee upon reasonable proof of identity and without requiring surrender of an original bill of lading. Where the bill of lading is negotiable, the Merchant is obliged to surrender one original, duly endorsed, in exchange for the Goods … IN WITNESS WHEREOF the number of original Bills of Lading stated on this side have been signed …”
The issuing bank refused the bills of lading because:
“B/L indicates that goods may be released without presentation of an original B/L”.
The Commission’s view was that this was not a discrepancy. The reasons seemingly advanced for this were:
• ‘There was no separate delivery clause stated on the bill of lading.’
• ‘The wording appearing on this particular bill of lading, … commencing with “[W]here the bill of lading is non-negotiable, the carrier …..” is considered to be terms and conditions of carriage and will not be examined according to sub-article 20 (a) (v).’
It was also ‘noted that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit the bill of lading has been issued in a negotiable form’.’
[edited 6/11/2009 9:05:26 AM]
You do not say if the credit contained provisions regarding the terms and conditions of the bills of lading presented. Therefore, it is unclear to me if the refusal was based on the express terms of the credit or some other basis.
The opinion Glenn refers to is 470/TA.675rev. As I have a summary (I prepared for internal use) that I can ‘copy & paste’ I reproduce the summary below.
‘The Credit concerned stated:
BILLS OF LADING THAT ON THEIR FACE INDICATE THAT GOODS MAY BE RELEASED WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF AN ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
The bills of lading presented included a lengthy (349 words) paragraph on its front which included the following:
“SHIPPED, as far as ascertained reasonable means of checking, in apparent good order … Where the bill of lading is non-negotiable, the Carrier may give delivery of the Goods to the named consignee upon reasonable proof of identity and without requiring surrender of an original bill of lading. Where the bill of lading is negotiable, the Merchant is obliged to surrender one original, duly endorsed, in exchange for the Goods … IN WITNESS WHEREOF the number of original Bills of Lading stated on this side have been signed …”
The issuing bank refused the bills of lading because:
“B/L indicates that goods may be released without presentation of an original B/L”.
The Commission’s view was that this was not a discrepancy. The reasons seemingly advanced for this were:
• ‘There was no separate delivery clause stated on the bill of lading.’
• ‘The wording appearing on this particular bill of lading, … commencing with “[W]here the bill of lading is non-negotiable, the carrier …..” is considered to be terms and conditions of carriage and will not be examined according to sub-article 20 (a) (v).’
It was also ‘noted that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit the bill of lading has been issued in a negotiable form’.’
[edited 6/11/2009 9:05:26 AM]