B/L endorsement

[ErichH]

We had recently an exchange with another bank regarding the meaning and interpretation of ICCl opinion R491.
We presented B/Ls under a confirmed doc. credit showing issued "to order" and showing as shipper Company X for and on behalf of company Y.
These B/Ls were duly endorsed by Company X.
The issuing bank refused documents due to the following discrepancy:
"B/L not endorsed by company Y."
We did not agree as we considered the shipper as Company X and therefore the B/Ls correctly endorsed as per ISBP 745E, article G12.
Issuing bank reverted and insisted on their discrepancy on the ground of ICC opinion No R491.
The analysis and conclusion in this opinion states: "An endorsement of a bill of lading issued in the circumstances that you have outlined may be made/completed by the Third party Trading Company (in our case Company X) ( as agent for Company T ( in our case company Y) or by company T)
Our understanding of this opinion is that Company X or Company Y can endorse the B/Ls . The issuing bank argued that company X should have added "as agent for company Y" on their endorsement. We think that in the said opinion the mention "as agent for Company T" is rather an explanation as the Third party trading Co. is already identified as such (as agent) in the shipper box.
Also the use of the brackets () in the conclusion of this opinion is not very helpful in its interpretation
In our daily practice we have seen many cases of B/ls endorsed by
the company identifying themselves as shipper for and behalf of another company on the face of the B/L without repeating "for and on behalf" , or "as agent for" when endorsing the said B/Ls.
We would like to read your opinion and thoughts whether this is bad practice and how you understand opinion R491.
Many thanks in advance
Maya

[asamaha]

In my opinion, X being identified in the B/L as acting on behalf of the shipper Y, there should be no need for X to mention its quality again on the back side of the same document.
Regards
Antoine Samaha