The LC requires port-tp-port BL and has a special clause
"Charter Party as per liner terms...acceptable."
We received a Charter BL using the format of CONGEN Charter Party BL. Would this be sufficient for you to comply with the exception?
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
-
JuergenHoltij
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
Welcome to the discussion forum Hans-Juergen !
It would be helpful if you could clarify a point. Where the LC states : "Charter Party as per liner terms...acceptable.", is this a separate statement referring only to the Charter Party, or is it linked to a requirement that the B/L complies with this ?
If the former, it is a non-documentary requirement.
If the latter, the type of Charter Party B/L is not significant, but liner terms are, so you must check for liner terms or equivalent.
Laurence
It would be helpful if you could clarify a point. Where the LC states : "Charter Party as per liner terms...acceptable.", is this a separate statement referring only to the Charter Party, or is it linked to a requirement that the B/L complies with this ?
If the former, it is a non-documentary requirement.
If the latter, the type of Charter Party B/L is not significant, but liner terms are, so you must check for liner terms or equivalent.
Laurence
-
JuergenHoltij
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
Laurence, thanks for your views.
SWIFT requires under 46 (documents required)
"Full set of clean - shipped on board- Bill of Lading ..." for which we would require Port-to-Port BL and UCP 23 is applicable
Under 47 (Additional Conditions):
"Charter Party Bills of Lading with Liner terms (and third party documents) acceptable"
Beside this some other add. conditions are mentioned in respect with clauses acceptable when appearing onthe BL.
Since Charter Party BL has been presented, our opinion is that in this case any reference in respect with Liner terms have to appear on the face of the document. We consider the CP BL presented as not complying with LC terms.
SWIFT requires under 46 (documents required)
"Full set of clean - shipped on board- Bill of Lading ..." for which we would require Port-to-Port BL and UCP 23 is applicable
Under 47 (Additional Conditions):
"Charter Party Bills of Lading with Liner terms (and third party documents) acceptable"
Beside this some other add. conditions are mentioned in respect with clauses acceptable when appearing onthe BL.
Since Charter Party BL has been presented, our opinion is that in this case any reference in respect with Liner terms have to appear on the face of the document. We consider the CP BL presented as not complying with LC terms.
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
Hello
Nice to see you here,
Best Regards,
Nandini Majumdar
Nice to see you here,
Best Regards,
Nandini Majumdar
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
I have to admit I’m not sure how a banker would establish a ‘charter party bill of lading’ was ‘with’ (presumably ‘subject to’) ‘liner terms’ (whatever they are) unless there was a simple statement such as ‘This bill of lading is subject to liner terms’ (whether this statement being factually correct or not being neither here nor there).
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
Forgive me if I have missed something, but there seems to be a fundamental contradiction here. SWIFT field 46 calls for B/L complying with Art. 23, but field 47 calls for C/P B/L. These two clauses cannot coexist. One must supercede the other, but which one ?
Laurence
Laurence
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
Well – the more you think about this, the more complicated it gets :-
)
Before reading this string, there was no doubt in my mind; now I am not so sure …
Anyway, had I replied before reading this, then my answer would be:
The main requirement in the L/C is the requirement of an article 23 B/L. However the presentation of a charter party B/L is acceptable. Since this is presented, I would find it natural to use article 25.
(What else would be the intention from the issuer?)
As for the “liner terms” requirements I would agree with Jeremy, that this should appear from the document. I do not think that it would be fair to expect that a simple banker like me should know whether or not this is included in the CONGEN format.
Best regards
Kim
)
Before reading this string, there was no doubt in my mind; now I am not so sure …
Anyway, had I replied before reading this, then my answer would be:
The main requirement in the L/C is the requirement of an article 23 B/L. However the presentation of a charter party B/L is acceptable. Since this is presented, I would find it natural to use article 25.
(What else would be the intention from the issuer?)
As for the “liner terms” requirements I would agree with Jeremy, that this should appear from the document. I do not think that it would be fair to expect that a simple banker like me should know whether or not this is included in the CONGEN format.
Best regards
Kim
-
JuergenHoltij
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
Thanks for your comments.
Laurence, we consider the clause in 47 as substitution option and checked the CP against UCP 25, but the lack of any reference to "liner terms" is creating the problem / the reason for our rejection under the Export LC.
Juergen
Laurence, we consider the clause in 47 as substitution option and checked the CP against UCP 25, but the lack of any reference to "liner terms" is creating the problem / the reason for our rejection under the Export LC.
Juergen
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
My understanding of Liner Terms is that costs of discharge are paid by the carrier.
Nonetheless I agree that bankers must determine from the B/L whether this has been complied with.
Laurence
Nonetheless I agree that bankers must determine from the B/L whether this has been complied with.
Laurence
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Charter Party B/L requesting Liner terms
As for liner terms I did a quick search on the internet, and came across the following statement:
Quote
Liner Terms is a very ambiguous statement and can be interpreted in a variety of ways in different ports of the world and by different Ship Owners/Agents. Personally we would prefer to clearly define the extent of responsibility when quoting on this basis.
Unquote
(source: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzksteph/charter.terms.A-F.htm)
There were other definitions, but all in all this just proves the point, that banks should not evaluate whether or not a specific transport is subject to liner terms. This should clearly appear from the document; and then we cross our fingers that the agreements between buyer, seller and carrier are clear on that point.
Best regards
Kim
Quote
Liner Terms is a very ambiguous statement and can be interpreted in a variety of ways in different ports of the world and by different Ship Owners/Agents. Personally we would prefer to clearly define the extent of responsibility when quoting on this basis.
Unquote
(source: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzksteph/charter.terms.A-F.htm)
There were other definitions, but all in all this just proves the point, that banks should not evaluate whether or not a specific transport is subject to liner terms. This should clearly appear from the document; and then we cross our fingers that the agreements between buyer, seller and carrier are clear on that point.
Best regards
Kim