B/L show:
+Pre-carriage: SINAR BITUNG
+Ocean vessel: HYUNDAI COMMODORE
+ Place of receipt and Port of loading: CAT LAI PORT
+ Port of Discharge and Place of Delivery: KARACHI, PAKISTAN
+ On board notation : "shipped on board SINAR BITUNG at CAT LAI PORT 01 NoV 2009"
.
Issuing bank refuse abv B/L because "BL on board notation showing shipped on Pre-carriage I/O ocean vessel".
.
We, as negotiating bank donot accept the abv disc because ICC opinions 1995-2001, querry R352, example 1 permitted.
However, issuing bank assume that SINAR BITUNG is not ocean vessel leaving from CAT LAI PORT because they checked with their files about ocean vessles on the world.
PLS comment!! in this case, how must B/L show?
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
-
THI THUY MYT_
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Sorry I did not read this carefully enough. I now see the place of receipt and port of loading are one & the same. Have to agree with Rob.
[edited 11/23/2009 10:09:02 AM]
[edited 11/23/2009 10:09:02 AM]
-
RobReissner
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Dear Thi,
Looking at the example given by you, I doubt whether reference to ICC Opinion R352 is appropriate. The situation rather resembles case No. 1 under ICC Opinion R457.
There the Banking Commission was of the opinion that, by its drafting, the bill of lading indicates that the pre-carrying vessel never leaves the port (in your case Cat Lai Port). As such, loading on board the ocean vessel (i.e. Hyundai Commodore) should be evidenced. So, the issuing bank would be right in calling for a discrepancy.
Kind regards,
Rob Reissner
Looking at the example given by you, I doubt whether reference to ICC Opinion R352 is appropriate. The situation rather resembles case No. 1 under ICC Opinion R457.
There the Banking Commission was of the opinion that, by its drafting, the bill of lading indicates that the pre-carrying vessel never leaves the port (in your case Cat Lai Port). As such, loading on board the ocean vessel (i.e. Hyundai Commodore) should be evidenced. So, the issuing bank would be right in calling for a discrepancy.
Kind regards,
Rob Reissner
-
THI THUY MYT_
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Dear Robreissner,
.
1. Pls explain clearly why we canot apply R352, example 1 in this case.
.
2. How to know whether the vessel leaving from port of loading or not?
.
1. Pls explain clearly why we canot apply R352, example 1 in this case.
.
2. How to know whether the vessel leaving from port of loading or not?
-
THI THUY MYT_
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Dear JSMITH,
.
We confirm that Port of loading and place of receipt is the same.
.
We confirm that Port of loading and place of receipt is the same.
-
RobReissner
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Dear Thi,
The issue under Opinion R352 evolved more around the question of transhipment under a letter of credit prohibiting transhipment.
In the analysis and conclusion the Banking Commission states "....the bill of lading would need a separate on board notation which clearly shows the date the goods were loaded on board; the name of the ocean vessel (Vessel A) and the port of loading (Karachi/Pakistan)". It is important to note that one referred to the "ocean" vessel. As to why Vessel A was added to that, the difference might be that, Vessel B is not specifically stated to be the ocean vessel.
The indication "Vessel voy (Flag)" above the box is not very clear as regards the status of the vessel. Looking at the Opinion in hind sight, I would say it might have called for further explanation on that point.
In any case, in your example Hyundai Commodore is indicated to be the ocean vessel. And even in terms of Opinion R352 you would then have to look for this vessel in the on board notation. In your example and the one in Opinion R457 it is clear that the pre-carrying vessel only brings the cargo alongside the ocean going vessel to be loaded on the latter. This all takes place in the same harbour and only the ocean vessel will be bound to take the cargo overseas.
Kind regards,
Rob Reissner
The issue under Opinion R352 evolved more around the question of transhipment under a letter of credit prohibiting transhipment.
In the analysis and conclusion the Banking Commission states "....the bill of lading would need a separate on board notation which clearly shows the date the goods were loaded on board; the name of the ocean vessel (Vessel A) and the port of loading (Karachi/Pakistan)". It is important to note that one referred to the "ocean" vessel. As to why Vessel A was added to that, the difference might be that, Vessel B is not specifically stated to be the ocean vessel.
The indication "Vessel voy (Flag)" above the box is not very clear as regards the status of the vessel. Looking at the Opinion in hind sight, I would say it might have called for further explanation on that point.
In any case, in your example Hyundai Commodore is indicated to be the ocean vessel. And even in terms of Opinion R352 you would then have to look for this vessel in the on board notation. In your example and the one in Opinion R457 it is clear that the pre-carrying vessel only brings the cargo alongside the ocean going vessel to be loaded on the latter. This all takes place in the same harbour and only the ocean vessel will be bound to take the cargo overseas.
Kind regards,
Rob Reissner
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Just to support Rob’s views, I think in R352 the significance of the place of receipt and port of loading being one & the same and there being ‘pre-carriage’ within the port of loading was simply not picked up, as the query related to transhipment. Whereas in the case of R457 it was because of the nature of the query.
[edited 11/23/2009 3:27:51 PM]
[edited 11/23/2009 3:27:51 PM]
-
HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Hi,
SINAR BITUNG in your case is not an ocean vessel but a feeder vessel, hence, a separate on board notation indicating the date of the goods loaded on board the name of the ocean vessel (HYUNDAI COMMODORE) and the port of loading (CAT LAI PORT) is required. Please see ICC Opinion R350 - When "Place of Receipt" and "Port of Loading" are the same place name - (Example 3 and Example 4).
Regards,
N.H.Duc
[edited 11/24/2009 12:53:54 AM]
SINAR BITUNG in your case is not an ocean vessel but a feeder vessel, hence, a separate on board notation indicating the date of the goods loaded on board the name of the ocean vessel (HYUNDAI COMMODORE) and the port of loading (CAT LAI PORT) is required. Please see ICC Opinion R350 - When "Place of Receipt" and "Port of Loading" are the same place name - (Example 3 and Example 4).
Regards,
N.H.Duc
[edited 11/24/2009 12:53:54 AM]
-
HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Hi Rob and Jeremy,
I wonder if the described case would fall in Opinion R352 or Case 4 of R457 in case of containerized goods.
In Vietnam, it is common that containerized goods are loaded on a container feeder vessel, e.g. SINAR BITUNG, at port of loading, e.g. CAT LAI PORT, to be carried to a hub port, e.g. SINGAPORE, where a mother container vessel, e.g. HUYNH DAI COMMODORE, would carry the goods to the destination port. In these cases, the name of the hub port “SINGAPORE” is not indicated on the bill of lading. And the on board notation would indicate as in the case described by THI THUY, i.e., SHIPPED ON BOARD SINAR BITUNG AT CAT LAI PORT ON 01 NOV 2009.
One of my colleagues very experienced in handling export documents says that he comes across this type of bill of lading every day and issuing banks do not raise any discrepancy with regards to such an on board notation.
I would like to hear your comments.
Regards,
N.H. Duc
I wonder if the described case would fall in Opinion R352 or Case 4 of R457 in case of containerized goods.
In Vietnam, it is common that containerized goods are loaded on a container feeder vessel, e.g. SINAR BITUNG, at port of loading, e.g. CAT LAI PORT, to be carried to a hub port, e.g. SINGAPORE, where a mother container vessel, e.g. HUYNH DAI COMMODORE, would carry the goods to the destination port. In these cases, the name of the hub port “SINGAPORE” is not indicated on the bill of lading. And the on board notation would indicate as in the case described by THI THUY, i.e., SHIPPED ON BOARD SINAR BITUNG AT CAT LAI PORT ON 01 NOV 2009.
One of my colleagues very experienced in handling export documents says that he comes across this type of bill of lading every day and issuing banks do not raise any discrepancy with regards to such an on board notation.
I would like to hear your comments.
Regards,
N.H. Duc
ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE
Dear all,
We had the same cases. For me R 350 (3) was relevant. I suggested to our NC that THE "On board Notation Paper" should deal with this issue in the Conclusions (a) which only states what happens when there is no indication of a means of pre-carriage
Daniel
We had the same cases. For me R 350 (3) was relevant. I suggested to our NC that THE "On board Notation Paper" should deal with this issue in the Conclusions (a) which only states what happens when there is no indication of a means of pre-carriage
Daniel