signature of shipper on AWB

General questions regarding UCP 500
simonkwok
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:22 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by simonkwok » Tue Oct 02, 2001 1:00 am

Air Waybill usually have a field require for the signature of shipper to certify 'the particulars on the face hereto are correct and agrees to the conditions on reverse hereof'. I wonder is it necessary for the shipper to sign on this field. If shipper have not signed on this field, is it constitute a valid discrepancy to refuse the documents?
LeoCullen
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by LeoCullen » Thu Oct 04, 2001 1:00 am

There is no requirement for the shipper's signature to appear on the Air waybill under UCP 500. Therefore, it is not a discrepancy if the shipper's signature does not appear.

However, this is not a straight forward issue. Any discussion on this topic will bring up legal matters, international conventions and international standard banking practice.

Among the people to have discussed this issue in DCInsight are:
Reinhard Längerich
Bernhard Wheble
Dr Boris Kozolchyk

The following is an extract from an article in DCInsight (Volume 3 No 3 Summer 1997) by Dr Boris Kozolchyk in which he discusses an article by
Reinhard Langerich.

"Mr Längerich then asks, , "Are bankers expected to have knowledge of relevant laws?" He highlights the difficulties of demanding such knowledge by asking whether a shipper's signature should be required for documents governed by the CMR convention on road waybills or for air waybills. The answer is that bankers are not expected to apply the CMR or the Warsaw Convention on air transportation to documents issued subject to these conventions except 1) where the local law of the paying or negotiating bank makes such an application mandatory, or 2) where the requirements of the particular Convention have become part of international banking practice by being part of the UCP, binding local custom or the credit itself. If the local law were to make the requirement of a shipper's signature mandatory, the paying or negotiating bank has no choice but to comply with such a law. In doing so, its reimbursement would be protected by Article 18(d) of the UCP, which makes the applicant liable to indemnify the banks against all obligations imposed by foreign laws and usages."
hatemshehab
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by hatemshehab » Fri Oct 05, 2001 1:00 am

The signature box to be signed by the shipper agreeing to all terms and condition stipulated overleaf is a matter of contractual agreement between the shipper and the carrier regarding this particular consignment, which is totally outside the L/C mandate.

Although it is good for the bank, the applicant to have this signature as this will indicate that the shipper declares that quantity of goods, condition are in order but this is not mandatory on the shipper if not stipulated in the credit. Therefore this is not a discrepancy and is not covered by the UCP.

If the bank is not required to check the contract of carriage on the reverse side of the trasport documents, then what difference does it make for that bank to check whether this contract is signed or not by the shipper?
hatemshehab
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by hatemshehab » Mon Oct 08, 2001 1:00 am

SORRY THIS WAS A ERRONUOUS POST
[edited 10/8/01 10:17:50 AM]
PavelA
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:24 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by PavelA » Tue Oct 09, 2001 1:00 am

I entirely agree with other participants above, this is not a discrepancy unless L/C specifically requires also the shipper to sign.
T.O.Lee
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:28 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by T.O.Lee » Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:00 am

NOT A DISCREPANCY UNDER UCP 500

Although the failure of a shipper to sign on a box provided in the AWB to certify that the goods are correctly stated would not be deemed as a discrepancy, purely from the UCP 500 point of view, since this requirement is not stipulated therein, yet from a practical point of view, it may lead to very serious consequences if this requirement from the air carrier is not being complied with under certain circumstances.

BUT MAYBE WITH A SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE

Let us share with viewers here a true story. A regular customer of an air carrier told the air carrier that the export licence (required for textile products controlled by quota system) would be available the next day and due to expiry of the DC, requested the air carrier to despatch the goods first, leaving the box for the shipper to certifiy the corrrect description of the goods unsigned, due to lack of export licence number.

The export licence was however not granted, and the air carrier was fined by the government for USD40,000 due to carrying goods without a valid export licence and also without requiring the shipper to sign on the declaration box. The fines could not be claimed from the shipper as it had never signed or declared for the goods in this box.

From that time on, the air carrier would not desptach the goods until after the box is signed with the related export licence number stated therein.

A NON-DISCREPANCY MAY BE MORE SERIOUS THAN AN ORDINARY DISCREPANCY

So this can be more serious than an ordinary discrepancy in the documents. It simply makes the air carrier unable to transport the goods.

ESACPE FROM FIRE IN MY HOTEL

For your information, on 7th Ocotber 2001 I was invited by the local bankers to go out at night time and escaped from the fire at 8.00 pm in Hyatt Recgency Hotel in Riyadh. When I returned at 11.30 pm I saw many policemen and firemen at the front entrace. I immediately thought of a bomb! But it was a fire.

The upper floors were without electricity and my room was blocked. I had to spend the night in another room, upgraded to a sutie for such reason. When my personal effects were returned next morning, they were all soiled with dirt and carbon particles deposited by the smokes.

HOPE TO RETURN TO TORONTO SAFELY

We post this message in the business centre of the Le Meridien Hotel Jeddah whilst waiting for the right time to depart to the airport. Hope the plane would arrive Toronto safely, amid the bombing in Afghanistan and despite many airliner accidents this week.

http://www.tolee.com

[edited 10/10/01 7:48:02 PM]
AbdulkaderBazara
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by AbdulkaderBazara » Thu Oct 11, 2001 1:00 am

Mr. T.O.Lee

We all wish you a safe return to Toronto. We had the pleasure to meet you in person, in Jeddah, and have enjoyed your seminar. It was a success by all standards. In addition, as a valuable contributor to the DC Pro Discussion Forum, we have missed you a lot. There are quite a number of queries awaiting for your professional opinion.

Best wishes

[edited 10/11/01 7:43:59 AM]
T.O.Lee
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:28 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by T.O.Lee » Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:00 am

Dear AbdulKader,

Thanks for your kind words. You are one of the active contributors in the discussion sessions in the Jeddah workshop and help to make it a success.

Yes, I have returned to Toronto safely, but not my baggages. On arrival at Toronto via Paris, Air France told me that they had missed my baggages and would return them the next day by a separate flight.

In DC terms, is this a short shipment, a deferred shipment, a partial shipment (hand carries are however OK) or an instalment shipment?

During this trip, I also learn that there is no trust receipt (T/R) in KSA and the Saudi Arabian Law is quite different from the Common Law or Civil Law.

Hope to see you next year in Jeddah.

T. O.

[edited 10/12/01 4:47:52 AM]
larryBacon
Posts: 689
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by larryBacon » Fri Oct 26, 2001 1:00 am

Dear T.O.

I hope that you have received your luggage by now. I think that I would regard this event in DC terms as a consignment covered by a received for shipment B/L, hopefully with payment by negotiation.

My recent lack of participation was due to travels abroad and catching up with work on my return. I hope to see you again in Frankfurt.

Laurence
T.O.Lee
Posts: 743
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:28 pm

signature of shipper on AWB

Post by T.O.Lee » Sat Oct 27, 2001 1:00 am

Laurence, our thanks for your concern. We received our baggages the next day but found some gift items broken. We chose not to claim under travel insurance as the cost of our time to do such tedious process is more than the total value of the claims.

T. O Lee
[edited 10/27/01 4:42:26 PM]
Post Reply