ICC Digital Library Forum

Here is a case which seem to give a few headaches and I would like get different points of views.

The Shipment is from coming from China to Montreal. The letter of credit calls for a Marine b/l and freight collect. When the issuing bank examines the documents, a Multimodal b/l is presented I/O a marine b/l. The multimodal b/l states shipment from china, Vancouver as port of discharge and final destination as Montreal and shipping terms freight collect.

Would you pick it up as a discrepancy since the freight charges are being paid for by the applicant and shipment went to Vancouver instead of directly to Montreal.

Mike,

welcome to the discussion forum

Although the net effect of the MM B/L presented is negligible in practical terms, the fact remains that the LC calls for a Marine B/L, but a MM B/L was presented and is therefore discrepant.

Laurence

I believe your discrepancy is port of discharge is Vancouver instead Montreal as required by the credit. See ICC Opinion R 226.

Mike,

Without liability / responsibility, personally:

I do not consider presentation of a MMTD, of itself, non-compliant if it meets the terms of Article 23 given the ‘however named’ provision of sub-Article 23a. However, ASSUMING the credit stipulates the port of discharge as Montreal it is non-compliant as it is in breach of sub-Article 23(a)(iii). That ‘the freight charges are being paid for by the applicant’ etc seems to me to be of no relevance whatsoever.

Jeremy

Hi Mike and welcome

Without responsibility etc. I agree with Jeremy -- I frequently see MM B/L's used as port to port B/LS. In fact quite a few B/Ls have a box to check if it is to be used as a MM B/L, otherwise it is used as a Port to Port.
The discrepancy would come from the port of discharge not being the one stipulated in the credit

Judith

Dear Mike,

I am fully in line with Jeremy here. However – assuming that this is a real case/dispute where you seek “fuel” for argumentation, I think that you should be very careful. The answers given here are based on the known facts alone. For this case I would surely like to see the document.
Example: The fact that Montreal is mentioned in the “final destination” box and not the “port of discharge box” need not be a problem – as long it is clear from the document that the goods will be transported to Montreal by vessel. See ISBP paragraph 81.

Best regards
Kim

Kim,

Good point.

Jeremy