Is Toronto consider a seaport or not?

[MikeSilverman]

Some banks in different countries believe that Toronto is not consider as a seaport. Can I get some opinions on this matter

I consider Toronto as a seaport since the goods can travel done the St. Lawrence seaway.

[LisaVC]

We have the same problem with the port of Chicago (where I am (the city, not the port)). The short answer is yes, it is a port. However, you have to consider a few things:
1) The St. Lawrence seaway is too narrow for most cargo ships. Therefore, only certain types of goods come through the seaway (commodities or bulk things such as steel, pig iron, salt). So, if your goods description is "Toasters", I don't think it is directly coming into the port of Toronto.
2) For at least several winter months (December - February at the minimum), much the St. Lawrence Seaway is frozen over, so many ports situated there close for the winter. If your credit specifies shipment to or from there in the winter months, the beneficiary probably can't accomplish it.
3) Where is the other end of the journey? If it is west (say Asia), then the chances of it being shipped by ocean passing through the Panama Canal (either way) is fairly small (unless once again, it is a commodity). Usually, it is MUCH cheaper to go by truck or rail across Canada or the United States then to travel through the Panama Canal by ocean. Most likely, you'll receive a multimodal B/L.

Based on the above, for the credits we issue, we require either an ocean B/L showing shipment to a U.S. port (depending on whether it is coming from east or west) and showing final destination as Chicago OR a multimodal B/L showing shipment to Chicago. As for credits we advise, we caution the beneficiary if there is an ocean B/L required with port of loading as Chicago. They have to make sure they can actually do it.

[LisaVC]

I thought you might be interested in this link:
http://www.forwarderlaw.com/feature/ucpport.htm

It talks about a Canadian bank that refused an ocean B/L showing Toronto as a port because they happened to know that the St. Lawrence Seaway was closed for the winter, so the port of Toronto was closed. Therefore, the shipment couldn't have been loaded in Toronto.

[NigelHolt]

Looking at a map, it seems to me Toronto could be considered a port, but not a ‘sea’ port given it seems to be some distance from the ‘sea’. I would observe the UCP does not draw a distinction between a ‘sea port’ and, for example, an ‘inland port' and just refers to 'port'. Therefore, I’m surprised it could be an issue.
[edited 2/16/2005 9:38:46 AM]

[KimChristensen]

Dear Mike,

Why is it, that you ask this question?

Best regards
kim

[larryBacon]

In the context of the UCP, it should not be necessary to consider whether or not Toronto is a sea port. If the LC calls for a marine B/L to Toronto, then if a marine B/L to Toronto is presented, docs are in order.

If Toronto is a seaport based on the St. Lawrence, do you then consider it as being a seaport only when it is not iced up ?
This is a rhetorical question to emphasise that we should look to the UCP to decide, rather than maps or weather forecasts.

Laurence


[edited 2/16/2005 4:17:11 PM]

[LisaVC]

In my opinion, the question is valid (rather than rhetorical), and while the UCP is the "Bible", it does not address every issue. But since we're mentioning ICC publications, how about ISBP paragraph 5: "Many of the problems that arise at the examination stage could be avoided or resolved by careful attention to detail in the underlying transaction, the credit application and issuance of the credit as discussed." As an issuer, I could blindly accept an application from an applicant that requires an ocean B/L and either the ship from and/or ship to locations are not ports. Technically, it is beneficiary's responsibility to decide whether or not he could comply with that, and ask for an amendment if he cannot. However, as a trade facilitator, I consider it a small additional step to take to ensure that if I require an ocean B/L that the places named are actual ports. It saves everyone time and money. On the export side, we're more constricted as we have to take what we get.

Regards,
Lisa

[MikeSilverman]

kim

The reason why I brought this topic up is becasue of the type of b/l that we receive at the time of examination. The l/c calls for a marine b/l (shipment is from China to Toronto) but a MMTD is presented instead This topic ties in with the one topic I created to discuss Marine verse Multimodal.

The reason for this question is that sometimes we see MMTD presented when the L/C calls for Marine b/l covering a port-to-port to toronto. MMTD shows shipment from one port to a port not stipulated in the l/c with the final destination AS TORONTO. We pick it up as a discrepancy since the port of discharge doesn't indicate Toronto as stipulated in the L/C.
Some presenting banks beleive that Toronto is not a seaport, and therefore shipment has to be sent to a port not stated in the l/c, and then further shipped to the final destination, thuis being a MMTD. Sometimes the customer is EXPECTING the direct shipment and when he sees a MMTD they have to pay for additional charges, however it is the customer responsibility to ensure with the bene as to the routing that will be used (Risk you take in letters of credit)

[KimChristensen]

Dear Mike,

Thanks for the clarification. I understand you, and I do not understand you

First of all, I do not think that the question is whether or not Toronto is a seaport. The question is if the L/C reflects what is obtainable. As it has been said under this topic: if the L/C requires a marine B/L then the B/L presented must show that the goods have been shipped by vessel between the ports mentioned in the L/C. In this case it seems that this is not possible; consequently the L/C should be amended / redrafted.

In Denmark we have a similar issue, since the ocean vessels from i.e. Far East and US do not call Copenhagen. They call Hamburg and/or Bremerhaven, and the goods are to be transhipped to Copenhagen. Many shipping lines are reluctant to indicate Copenhagen as Port of Discharge, as the goods may be transhipped via rail, road, air or sea; depending on the practical issues determined at arrival in the port of discharge.
Therefore the L's/C are drafted to reflect this situation. One example is to call for - or permit - the presentation of a Multimodal Transport Document; and in many cases with the addition that the document must show that goods are shipped on board at port of loading (as many importers can not accept sub-article 26,a,ii).

And now for the part that I do not understand: You say that the presenting banks do not think that Toronto is a seaport, for what reason another port is mentioned as port of discharge. I do not understand why a presenting bank (assuming that this is a Chinese bank in this case), would do a thing like that. As I see it, their job would be to check if the presented document complies with the L/C requirement, and if Toronto in mentioned as port of discharge, I simply fail to understand that a bank (on the other side of the world) would question that ... frozen seaways and what have we ...

Following what Lisa said, I would find it more natural if the issuing bank informs an applicant if they are aware of a potential problem. After all they may have some local knowledge.
Still; what it comes down to is the specific wording in the L/C. This should of course reflect the agreement between buyer and seller, and the issuing bank can (should?), as mentioned, inform if the see potential problems. It must however be up to the buyer and the seller to ensure that requirements like these reflect what is possible in the real world.

Best regards
Kim

[edited 2/17/2005 7:55:18 PM]

[LisaVC]

Thank you, Kim. You said it more eloquently than I did.