ICC Digital Library Forum

Dear Friends,
I'm very interested in your opinions in the following matter:
An irrevocable, transferable letter of credit requests under field 44A "loading in charge" quote aný port in tailandia or any asian port unquote and under field 44B "for transport to" quote Valparaiso/San Antonio unquote. As transport document a
quote
Full Set Ocean Bill of Lading Clean on Board duly signed in 3/3 (originals/copies) showing the freight amount marked prepaid, in numbers and words consigned to .... (here the opening bank is quoted) notify to applicant
unquote is required.
Beneficiaries presented a Bill of lading as per the above requirement showing as Port of Discharge "Valparaiso/San Antonio".
As per my point of view, this indication of port of discharge would be no reasons for refusal as beneficiary has strictly fulfilled the conditions of the l/c and the requirements of Art.23 a iii "... port of discharge stipulated in the credit ...". I did not find any other indications (neither in UCP 500 nor in the opinions of ICC) which would lead to another result. Please let me know your comments.
Thank you in advance.
Christa Schneiderbauer

Dear Christa,

you appear to be saying that someone has rejected on the basis of an incorrect port/s of destination. If this is correct, please advise on what grounds the rejection is made. From your description, it is possible that rejection is made on other grounds, e.g. the B/L requirement states "Full Set Ocean Bill of Lading Clean on Board duly signed in 3/3 (originals/copies)". Here the words in brackets, i.e. originals or copies, could be interpreted to be contradictory to the start of the sentence {Full set}. Further you have said that " Beneficiaries presented a Bill of lading...". This would seem to indicate that only one B/L was presented, which, even by the liberal interpretation above, would be discrepant.

Perhaps you could provide some clarification ?

Laurence

Larry, I believe that you are asking Christa the same question that she is asking you ie. what are the grounds for refusal in the case outlined above if the port of discharge is displayed in the BL as follows:

Port of Discharge "Valparaiso/San Antonio".
-----

Opinion R368 may be of help. It has a very promising title -

Bills of lading indicating more than one port of discharge

- but doesn't reflect your situation til it says in the conclusion:

"Case No.2

The ICC Banking Commission has previously declared that in the event of charter party bills of lading being allowed and the credit specifying shipment to a range of ports, or, as in your case, a country's port(s), the charter party bill of lading may show in the port of discharge box "Country K Port(s)". This recognizes the fact that the charter party agreement will determine where and on what conditions the goods will be unloaded. In a marine or ocean bill of lading situation, the port of discharge box must state the actual name of the port."

So, having 2 separate ports indicated in the Port of Discharge" box is seen to be a discrepancy.

Leo,

any default position relating to the Articles of the UCP can be superseded by instructions to that effect in the DC. I regard an instruction to ship to "Valparaiso/San Antonio" as a direct instruction to that effect and a B/L quoting exactly this would therefore be compliant.
This is also the reason why I asked the question, as I fail to be inspired to find a reason for rejection.
If the DC had required shipment to "any Chilean port", then there would be a specific requirement for a single port to be shown in the B/L and "Valparaiso/San Antonio" would not be acceptable.

Laurence

Personally, & without liability/responsibility, I believe the question revolves around the meaning of ‘/’ (a ‘virgule’* apparently). Unless the context indicates otherwise, I interpret it as meaning ‘or’. Looking at a map, it seems Valparaiso and San Antonio are two separate coastal locations, therefore reinforcing the case for saying that ‘/’ means ‘or’ here. Thus, I would interpret the credit as requiring shipment to Valparaiso OR San Antonio. As a result, I would regard the b/l described above as discrepant for showing two ports, unless I could be convinced there was such a port as ‘Valparaiso/San Antonio’.

Given the potential problems as to interpretation created by the use of the ‘/’ I always try to avoid it.

*Bit of ‘faux ami’ as in French (and perhaps other Latin based languages?) a ‘virgule’ is a comma.

I agree with Jeremy that one should try to avoid the solidus (a.k.a. virgule, oblique, slash, /, etc) as its definition may be open to interpretation in different countries and even in different regions of countries.

However I suggest that the ordinary definition of this is "and/or". Thus either or both ports would be acceptable in the cited example.

Apart from Jeremy, whose views are known, does anybody agree or disagree with this view ?

Laurence

In Charter Party operations it is quite common for a b/l to show a range of disports e.g. Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp. In the commodity market banks have accepted these b/l's for many years. However for non c/p b/l's, even if an l/c called for 'Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp', I would reject a b/l which did not show one specific port of discharge.

I too would find a bill of lading to be discrepant if it indicated more than one port of discharge.

Philip,

whilst I agree that it is common practice on c/p B/L to show more than one discharge port and less likely on non-c/p B/L, if you reject, it must be based on non-compliance with UCP. If you reject for multiple ports of discharge on non-c/p B/L, but not for c/p B/L, where does the UCP make this distinction ?
What is your view (and Simonj's) on the definition of the solidus ?

Laurence
[edited 12/13/02 10:32:25 AM]

The answer to this, I believe, lies in the differing nature of the two documents.

To help in the explanation of this, I point you to Official Opinion R281:

Conclusion

It has been the previous opinion of the ICC that an Ocean bill of lading (i.e. one to which Article 23 would apply) must be definitive as to the actual port of discharge and not state, for example, "Any Japanese Port", even though that was as stated in the L/C with regard to "shipment to". With a charter party however, the nature of the contract of carriage is not so clear-cut, since it is known that a charter party may well be concluded on the basis of the cargo being taken to a geographical area (rather than a specified port). When the buyers and sellers have not, at the time, decided upon the actual port, the ship will carry the cargo on a "for orders" basis, i.e. the master/owners will be notified in due course as to the port to which delivery should be made.


This is borne out with article 23’s provisions in relation to the port of discharge, in particular in relation to the “intended” port of discharge. This adds emphasis to the need to be specific in relation to the port of discharge in the BOL that doesn't appear in relation to the charter party BOL - article 25.

“(b) contains the indication 'intended' or similar qualification in relation to the port of loading and/or port of discharge, as long as the document also states the ports of loading and/or discharge stipulated in the Credit,”


Also and separately...

This in fact, for me, extends the original discussion. Having 2 destinations in the port of discharge casts doubt on the actual port of discharge. As only one port can actually be the port of discharge – it could be argued that we have a situation where there are 2 possible ‘intended’ ports of discharge. The actual port of discharge would therefore have to indicated elsewhere on the document.

[edited 12/13/02 3:58:43 PM]