ICC Digital Library Forum

we have issued an irrevocable letter of credit. required transport document was a full set of clean on board combined transport bill of lading, made out to order, blank endorsed, notify applicant
bill of lading was presented with a remark "this shipment does not contain any solid wood packing material" - goods (stainless steel cookware) were delivered in full container load.
would you accept such a bill of lading ?

BEETLES THAT CANNOT PLAY ROCK AND ROLL

Some countries like USA and Canada prohibit imports using wood, particularly second hand wood, as packing materials because some woods from certain countries may have beetles and their eggs. Those beetles can eat up their forests. Canada is a very important supplier of soft wood to USA and pulp to other countries for papermaking. We do not wish to give the precise names of such beetles. Otherwise those countries may not be happy.

The declaration in the BL in the query is to remove the doubts from the customs people in the importing country. We think there should be some sort of packing, using cartons or other non-wood packing in the stainleess steel cookware in the BL. Hay is another prohibited packing material for certain countries. Hay shares the same problem with some computer software – BUGS.

DISCLAIMER

Please consult an expert and do not rely on or act acording to our above opinion.

www.tolee.com

[edited 4/29/02 10:06:07 PM]

Fascinating and enlightening stuff from T.O.

My personal reaction, without liability, is:

As a banker, and ecological non-expert, I would ask myself: does this ‘clause’ breach sub-Article 32a? Presumably this is what you, Wolfgang, are doing. Based on the bare facts provided by you, I would not consider the blading to expressly declare a defective condition of the goods &/or packing.

There are similar conditions prevailing to shipments to the Antipodes, whereby if one includes wood in packing etc, one must fumigate the container and provide documentary evidence of this. Presumably the statement on the B/L indicates that the fumigation certificate is not required. It would not be a cause for rejection under Article 32.

Laurence

Jeremy,

I am also impressed by the answer of T.O and Laurence. I am sure that no matter what, we are influenced with this illuminating information and UCP 500 would not give a crystal clue on this subject

I envy you guys for these.

Jeremy & Hatem,

Thanks for your kind and encouraging words.

However, we are not born with such knowledge. We have to sacrifice our time for watching TV to find them out from related trade magazines and professional journals. Hence to be a really good DC consultant or expert is not an easy task. That is why our fees cannot be too cheap as we do have high operating costs, buying expensive refernece publications for our DC library and time for reading them, attending ICC BC meeings, spending revenue earning time for providing some voluntary services to ICC, giving comments and opinions on rule making and updating. We have to be reimbursed through our services to our customers. However, in most of the cases, our fees are not more than 6 months interest on the DC face value.

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys! If one buys peanuts to be delivered in a chartered cargo ship, one is a "nut" (USA interpretation) if one does not call for a fumigation certificate in the DC.

www.tolee.com

[edited 4/30/02 9:47:48 PM]