L/C issued as follows :-
Shipment from Port A
Shipment to POrt C
Transhipment Allowed
Ocean Bill of Lading presented under a letter of credit whereby the place of receipt and the port of loading are the same port (A)with both a pre carriage and ocean vessel.
The shipped on board notation on the bill of lading refers to the pre carriage vessel from Port A. The appendix to the Bill of Lading also contains the clause Transhipment at port B on the ocean vessel.
For this BL to be in order under the lc
should the 'place of receipt' be altered to read as the 'port of loading' and the 'port of loading' be altered to read as the 'port of transhipment'?
Port of Loading v Port of Transhipment
-
GeraldineDaly
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:13 pm
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Port of Loading v Port of Transhipment
Geraldine,
I'm not sure if I understand the situation fully from your description, but I think you are saying that the place of receipt is the same as the first port of loading which is port (A). I also think that the B/L indicates as (preprinted) port of loading the port which is shown in the on board notation as the port of transhipment.
You have a B/L with an on board notation indicating shipment from port (A) and transhipment through another port.
If this is correct, the on board notation confirms the despatch of goods in accordance with the DC requirements, as it presumably is entered and dated subsequent to the detail on the remainder of the B/L and supersedes anything else to the contrary.
Laurence
I'm not sure if I understand the situation fully from your description, but I think you are saying that the place of receipt is the same as the first port of loading which is port (A). I also think that the B/L indicates as (preprinted) port of loading the port which is shown in the on board notation as the port of transhipment.
You have a B/L with an on board notation indicating shipment from port (A) and transhipment through another port.
If this is correct, the on board notation confirms the despatch of goods in accordance with the DC requirements, as it presumably is entered and dated subsequent to the detail on the remainder of the B/L and supersedes anything else to the contrary.
Laurence
Port of Loading v Port of Transhipment
From what I can see the B/L seems to be in order - although I am unsure of the
significance of the appendix showing "transhipment at port b".
I found it useful to read R459.
significance of the appendix showing "transhipment at port b".
I found it useful to read R459.
-
GeraldineDaly
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:13 pm
Port of Loading v Port of Transhipment
Laurence,
Thanks for your speedy reply!
The BL indicates as (preprinted) port of loading Port A (Same as the place of receipt)
Port B the port of transhipment is only mentioined on the appendix to the BL.
On it's face it shows the pre-carriage and ocean vessel both leaving from Port A.
Thanks for your speedy reply!
The BL indicates as (preprinted) port of loading Port A (Same as the place of receipt)
Port B the port of transhipment is only mentioined on the appendix to the BL.
On it's face it shows the pre-carriage and ocean vessel both leaving from Port A.
Port of Loading v Port of Transhipment
Dear Geraldine,
We would like to request you to refer to ISBP Article 84 (made based on ICC Opinion R460) that allows the name of the "port of loading" (e.g. Hong Kong) specified in the DC be put in "place of receipt" box (also Hong Kong) in the BL.
Article 85 refers to the same concept regarding port of discharge and place of final destination. Article 86 uses Hong Kong as an example to illustrate a case similar to yours.
In Hong Kong, as far as containerized transport is concerned, the port of loading and the place of receipt (the container depots, CFS & CY) are all within the legal or maritime boundary of the port of Hong Kong (which means fragrant harbour literally) as specified by the Port Authority of Hong Kong.
My late father, Master Mariner Li U Cheung, was a licensed harbour pilot who brought the QEII into the Hong Kong harbour. He was also the Chairman of the Seafarers Association of Hong Kong and gave lectures on navigation and ship management at home over the large dinner table. I was an observer student from age 6. Our family once owned a pier along the harbour front, right near what is now known as the Macau Ferries. If it were not reclaimed by the Hong Kong Government after WWII, all of my brothers and sister do not have to work now!
T. O. Lee
www.tolee.com
[edited 11/20/02 6:05:31 PM]
We would like to request you to refer to ISBP Article 84 (made based on ICC Opinion R460) that allows the name of the "port of loading" (e.g. Hong Kong) specified in the DC be put in "place of receipt" box (also Hong Kong) in the BL.
Article 85 refers to the same concept regarding port of discharge and place of final destination. Article 86 uses Hong Kong as an example to illustrate a case similar to yours.
In Hong Kong, as far as containerized transport is concerned, the port of loading and the place of receipt (the container depots, CFS & CY) are all within the legal or maritime boundary of the port of Hong Kong (which means fragrant harbour literally) as specified by the Port Authority of Hong Kong.
My late father, Master Mariner Li U Cheung, was a licensed harbour pilot who brought the QEII into the Hong Kong harbour. He was also the Chairman of the Seafarers Association of Hong Kong and gave lectures on navigation and ship management at home over the large dinner table. I was an observer student from age 6. Our family once owned a pier along the harbour front, right near what is now known as the Macau Ferries. If it were not reclaimed by the Hong Kong Government after WWII, all of my brothers and sister do not have to work now!
T. O. Lee
www.tolee.com
[edited 11/20/02 6:05:31 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Port of Loading v Port of Transhipment
Geraldine,
it would appear to me that there is an error in the B/L indicating shipment of both vessels from the same port and the appendix is an effort to correct this. I suspect that this B/L is computer generated and that this is the main reason for adding an appendix as opposed to a correction stamp (computers are not yet good at using correction stamps & initialling). If the error was spotted after printing all the bills of lading for that sailing, it is reasonable to expect the line/agent to print an appendix to correct them.
This is only inspired guesswork on my part. To satisfy yourself completely you should contact the line/agent to ascertain the facts. In this instance, I do not consider that you would be deviating from the requirement to check documents "at face value", since there appears to be a document which could be interpreted in more than one way. I regard this as clarification, in the same way as you might clarify with an issuing bank the wording in a DC. You would not be entitled to instruct the line/agent to correct the B/L, but you may be able to accept their version of the intention within the appendix, for example.
Laurence
[edited 11/20/02 9:28:37 AM]
it would appear to me that there is an error in the B/L indicating shipment of both vessels from the same port and the appendix is an effort to correct this. I suspect that this B/L is computer generated and that this is the main reason for adding an appendix as opposed to a correction stamp (computers are not yet good at using correction stamps & initialling). If the error was spotted after printing all the bills of lading for that sailing, it is reasonable to expect the line/agent to print an appendix to correct them.
This is only inspired guesswork on my part. To satisfy yourself completely you should contact the line/agent to ascertain the facts. In this instance, I do not consider that you would be deviating from the requirement to check documents "at face value", since there appears to be a document which could be interpreted in more than one way. I regard this as clarification, in the same way as you might clarify with an issuing bank the wording in a DC. You would not be entitled to instruct the line/agent to correct the B/L, but you may be able to accept their version of the intention within the appendix, for example.
Laurence
[edited 11/20/02 9:28:37 AM]