Two queries on the B/L
1- L/C requires a full set of 3/3 clean, “ on board” marine B/L.
The B/L presented indicates the following
- Vessel: V/R
- On board notation: “clean shipped on board V/R, Hamburg dd/mm/yy.
The word clean is crossed (apparent intention to delete) and the correction is authenticated by the carrier with a small chop and initial.
- Container Nos: as per attached specifications and this statement is repeated underneath the description of goods
The attachment entitled “specifications to the bill of lading” does not make any reference to the B/L neither in terms of number or that it is an integral part of the B/L. However the apparent connection between the two can be made due to:
- the L/C No
- The gross weight of the goods shipped in containers
- The vessel name; V/R
- Port of loading and port of discharge
The query is that the attachment is not signed by the carrier, nor issued on his letterhead nor specifies itself as integral part of the B/L, does this give enough grounds for considering this as discrepant?
2- L/C requires a full set of 3/3 clean, “ on board” marine B/L.
The B/L presented indicates the following
- Vessel: V/R
- On board notation: “shipped on board V/R, Hamburg dd/mm/yy.
- Under the columns “marks & numbers” , “No of containers” , “kind of packages – description of goods” the following statement is printed
"As per attached specifications ***"
The attachment shows the following:
- Dated the same original B/L and marked page 1
- States the number of the B/L, Vessel name, port of loading and discharge.
- Shipping marks and description of goods in detail as required by the L/C
- Weight and volume
- Marked “ORIGINAL”
The query is that if the attachment is not signed by the carrier, and giving more details than the “mother B/L" thus giving more weight to the attachment, does this give enough grounds for considering this as discrepant?
Note: both attachments are stapled to two separate B/L under different transactions.
[edited 10/14/01 6:15:06 AM]
Two Queries on the B/L
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
An attachment is usually prepared due to the excessive details required by the credit to appear on the bill of lading.
I have noticed, in many cases, that part of a shipping company’s signature and stamp or just the company’s stamp appear on the back of the attachment and the remaining part on the back of the bill of lading. This is usually made by placing the attachment half way on the bill of lading and then fixing the stamp and the signature or only the stamp across both documents. This could also be the case for both bills of lading.
Notwithstanding above, I would not consider a bill of lading as discrepant provided it shows or refers to the goods description, at least, in general terms and refers to an attachment. The attachment shouldn’t, of course, be inconsistent with either the bill of lading or the other documents presented under the credit.
I have noticed, in many cases, that part of a shipping company’s signature and stamp or just the company’s stamp appear on the back of the attachment and the remaining part on the back of the bill of lading. This is usually made by placing the attachment half way on the bill of lading and then fixing the stamp and the signature or only the stamp across both documents. This could also be the case for both bills of lading.
Notwithstanding above, I would not consider a bill of lading as discrepant provided it shows or refers to the goods description, at least, in general terms and refers to an attachment. The attachment shouldn’t, of course, be inconsistent with either the bill of lading or the other documents presented under the credit.
Two Queries on the B/L
I agree with the opinion given above.
Pavel Andrle
Pavel Andrle
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
The shipping company’s signature/chop or stamp is not appearing on the both attachments to the bill of lading.
“WHAT IF” QUESTIONS
In the absence of the shipping company’s signature or stamp, legitimate questions are to be considered:
1. What makes us so sure that this attachment came from the carrier/ shipping company and had not been replaced by the shipper or prepared by him?
2. What if the attachment contained certain clauses imposed by the carrier or any data that would deem the document as discrepant and upon first presentation the beneficiary replaced the attachment to secure payment?
3. What if the issuing bank considered this attachment as an additional document since there is no linkage between it and the bill of lading? We might have a document related to the transaction but not called for in the L/C would we examine that document?
4. What if the carrier placed most of the data of the bill of lading on this attachment leaving the original almost empty expect for the goods description and few other data, wouldn’t this affect his liabilities under the bill of lading and the contract of carriage, wouldn’t this affect the party to whom the B/L is made to order?
5. What if the L/C has no detailed specifications like the first case
6. Why would the carrier state that the attachment is page one when it is actually page two as in the second case?
7. What if the font of the print is different from that of the B/L?
8. What if there insurance company, in case of a claim, raised questions to this B/L and the attachment? Are we hundred percent sure what might come next if the goods are damaged?
[edited 10/20/01 12:35:03 PM]
“WHAT IF” QUESTIONS
In the absence of the shipping company’s signature or stamp, legitimate questions are to be considered:
1. What makes us so sure that this attachment came from the carrier/ shipping company and had not been replaced by the shipper or prepared by him?
2. What if the attachment contained certain clauses imposed by the carrier or any data that would deem the document as discrepant and upon first presentation the beneficiary replaced the attachment to secure payment?
3. What if the issuing bank considered this attachment as an additional document since there is no linkage between it and the bill of lading? We might have a document related to the transaction but not called for in the L/C would we examine that document?
4. What if the carrier placed most of the data of the bill of lading on this attachment leaving the original almost empty expect for the goods description and few other data, wouldn’t this affect his liabilities under the bill of lading and the contract of carriage, wouldn’t this affect the party to whom the B/L is made to order?
5. What if the L/C has no detailed specifications like the first case
6. Why would the carrier state that the attachment is page one when it is actually page two as in the second case?
7. What if the font of the print is different from that of the B/L?
8. What if there insurance company, in case of a claim, raised questions to this B/L and the attachment? Are we hundred percent sure what might come next if the goods are damaged?
[edited 10/20/01 12:35:03 PM]
Two Queries on the B/L
I have not probably made myself above clear. I believe that the banker must establish clear link btw B/L and its attachment, he must be sufficiently sure that the attachment has been issued by the same party as the B/L and that is integral part of the B/L. It might be done by signature, stamp or other authentication. The options given by Abdulkader in the second paragraph look good to me.
Pavel Andrle
[edited 10/20/01 1:08:53 PM]
[edited 10/20/01 1:10:20 PM]
Pavel Andrle
[edited 10/20/01 1:08:53 PM]
[edited 10/20/01 1:10:20 PM]
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
MORE "WHAT IF" QUESTIONS:
1. What if the on board notation is appearing on the attachment ?
2. What if the B/L shows transhipment and it shows the pre-carriage vessel as X and the attachment shows the occean vessel as Y, wouldn't this affect the shipper or the party to whom the B/L is made to order, especially if the carrier is liable only for the first leg of sea carriage?
1. What if the on board notation is appearing on the attachment ?
2. What if the B/L shows transhipment and it shows the pre-carriage vessel as X and the attachment shows the occean vessel as Y, wouldn't this affect the shipper or the party to whom the B/L is made to order, especially if the carrier is liable only for the first leg of sea carriage?
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
Dear Mr. PavelA
With respect to you I think you have made a hastily reply to my query. Its dangerous to agree or even disagree with people without caution.
If you say the “the banker must establish clear link btw B/L and its attachment” what other means that might be considered for the banker other than “signature, stamp or other authentication”
I m interested to hear your comments on my what if questions?
Your second reply may be construed that the both attachments are discrepant.
With respect to you I think you have made a hastily reply to my query. Its dangerous to agree or even disagree with people without caution.
If you say the “the banker must establish clear link btw B/L and its attachment” what other means that might be considered for the banker other than “signature, stamp or other authentication”
I m interested to hear your comments on my what if questions?
Your second reply may be construed that the both attachments are discrepant.
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
SOME MORE “WHAT IF” QUESTIONS
It seems that I have developed intoxication to this new approach, perhaps to get the creamiest results from participants in the forum. Here are more three questions to consider
1. What if the attachment contains clauses stating defect in goods or packaging, would we consider the B/L as discrepant? What if the shipper (beneficiary) replaced the attachment or rectified it to get rid of those clauses, would the B/L be considered clean?
2. What if the date appearing on the attachment is different from the date of the B/L and the last date of shipment stated in the credit?
3. What if the attachment contains excessive details and the B/L is almost blank like the second query, will we endorse the attachment or the B/L, will these excessive details affect the title of property to the goods?
It seems that I have developed intoxication to this new approach, perhaps to get the creamiest results from participants in the forum. Here are more three questions to consider
1. What if the attachment contains clauses stating defect in goods or packaging, would we consider the B/L as discrepant? What if the shipper (beneficiary) replaced the attachment or rectified it to get rid of those clauses, would the B/L be considered clean?
2. What if the date appearing on the attachment is different from the date of the B/L and the last date of shipment stated in the credit?
3. What if the attachment contains excessive details and the B/L is almost blank like the second query, will we endorse the attachment or the B/L, will these excessive details affect the title of property to the goods?
Two Queries on the B/L
Hello Hatem,
DON'T RAISE QUERIES WHERE THE ENQUIRER SHOULD KNOW THE ANSWER
We think you should have known the answers to your three "What Ifs". Then why post them? Do you intend to get answers different from your own?
Whilst from our consultancy experience, we believe that anything may happen these days, we do not see why the attachment is full of data content whilst the B/L itself is left blank. This does not make sense.
WE DO NOT RESPOND TO HYPOTHETICAL QUERIES
Like a politician, we do not wish to respond to hypothetical questions.
The only answer we can give to your hytothetical queries are :
Documents are to be examined with simple common sense.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/21/01 5:15:03 PM]
DON'T RAISE QUERIES WHERE THE ENQUIRER SHOULD KNOW THE ANSWER
We think you should have known the answers to your three "What Ifs". Then why post them? Do you intend to get answers different from your own?
Whilst from our consultancy experience, we believe that anything may happen these days, we do not see why the attachment is full of data content whilst the B/L itself is left blank. This does not make sense.
WE DO NOT RESPOND TO HYPOTHETICAL QUERIES
Like a politician, we do not wish to respond to hypothetical questions.
The only answer we can give to your hytothetical queries are :
Documents are to be examined with simple common sense.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 10/21/01 5:15:03 PM]
-
hatemshehab
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Two Queries on the B/L
Dear Mr. Lee
I’m surprised by your response to my query and would like to make the following points briefly:
1. Queries can be raised even if the inquirer knows the answer. It is possible that although one thinks that he knows, there might be some gray areas that he wants to share with others. May be he wants to be more confident about his answer or may be he does not know although he pretends to know the answer.
2. You should not sanction people from making queries and please let them feel free to ask. What makes you so sure that I know the answer or my answer is correct? In fact the purpose of this query is serious and not to waste time of others, including you. The query originated from real case and I put it in DC PRO intentionally during one of the 10 days training program, which I was facilitating to promote the DC PRO and to share ideas with others. I could have requested some trainees to post it but I decided to post it myself on their behalf to be able to manage the query and perhaps difficult people. I did not put my opinion because I wanted the exercise to be professional and that people share their views and also not to solicit any official opinion on my part to the case. here it will come as a personal opinion.
3. The query is not hypothetical and we should not judge people for what is apparently may seem to us but rather we could just inquire privately especially if those people are friends or acquaintances.
4. We should not undermine queries even if it seems to be stupid. I could hardly imagine that you do this when you yourself have been uncomfortable with some people who undermine opinions.
5. Although you have used strong words, I would like to remind you of some of your phrases, which you made, and I used to cherish
- “The more you know the more you don’t know”,
- “There is no "one size to fit all" answer to this query. On many occasions, world class LC experts may have different opinions on this issue, particularly that some are from banks and some are from the legal or academic profession.”
- “Don't forget this is a FREE discussion forum that any side issues brought forward or inspired by a member can be discussed. You choose not to respond to those side issues, which you consider "irrelevant", fine. We respect your right to remain silent. But you have no right to police other members, what to talk and what not to talk. Only the DC Pro editor has such power. In other words, if you see a message from a member not being removed here, it is however relevant, whether one likes it or not!”
6. One last comment. In one of your posts you said
“VIEWERS HERE HAVE ALREADY CASTED THEIR VOTES FOR APPROVAL. If our opinions were irrelevant, we should not have scored over thousand viewers here, the highest record so far in the DC Pro Discussion Forum. So viewers have already voted for their approval with their record number of visits.”
My query have been viewed by more than hundred isn’t that in line with your above statement.
Best regards
Hatem
[edited 10/22/01 8:38:21 AM]
I’m surprised by your response to my query and would like to make the following points briefly:
1. Queries can be raised even if the inquirer knows the answer. It is possible that although one thinks that he knows, there might be some gray areas that he wants to share with others. May be he wants to be more confident about his answer or may be he does not know although he pretends to know the answer.
2. You should not sanction people from making queries and please let them feel free to ask. What makes you so sure that I know the answer or my answer is correct? In fact the purpose of this query is serious and not to waste time of others, including you. The query originated from real case and I put it in DC PRO intentionally during one of the 10 days training program, which I was facilitating to promote the DC PRO and to share ideas with others. I could have requested some trainees to post it but I decided to post it myself on their behalf to be able to manage the query and perhaps difficult people. I did not put my opinion because I wanted the exercise to be professional and that people share their views and also not to solicit any official opinion on my part to the case. here it will come as a personal opinion.
3. The query is not hypothetical and we should not judge people for what is apparently may seem to us but rather we could just inquire privately especially if those people are friends or acquaintances.
4. We should not undermine queries even if it seems to be stupid. I could hardly imagine that you do this when you yourself have been uncomfortable with some people who undermine opinions.
5. Although you have used strong words, I would like to remind you of some of your phrases, which you made, and I used to cherish
- “The more you know the more you don’t know”,
- “There is no "one size to fit all" answer to this query. On many occasions, world class LC experts may have different opinions on this issue, particularly that some are from banks and some are from the legal or academic profession.”
- “Don't forget this is a FREE discussion forum that any side issues brought forward or inspired by a member can be discussed. You choose not to respond to those side issues, which you consider "irrelevant", fine. We respect your right to remain silent. But you have no right to police other members, what to talk and what not to talk. Only the DC Pro editor has such power. In other words, if you see a message from a member not being removed here, it is however relevant, whether one likes it or not!”
6. One last comment. In one of your posts you said
“VIEWERS HERE HAVE ALREADY CASTED THEIR VOTES FOR APPROVAL. If our opinions were irrelevant, we should not have scored over thousand viewers here, the highest record so far in the DC Pro Discussion Forum. So viewers have already voted for their approval with their record number of visits.”
My query have been viewed by more than hundred isn’t that in line with your above statement.
Best regards
Hatem
[edited 10/22/01 8:38:21 AM]