determination of transhipment a/to sub-article 23(d)(i)

[NevinErtan]

although l/c restricted the transhipment,2 different b/l is presented signed by the same agent which belongs to the different carrier.under sub-article 23(d)(i)this documents are discrepant or not.p.s.cargo is shipped in Container(s),

[NigelHolt]

Nevin, are you saying:
> two different sets of bills of lading;
> for the same consignment of goods;
> covering different legs of the journey;
were presented?
[edited 2/24/2005 4:27:31 PM]

[AlbertB]

The question is not "Transshipment". There is no UCP article allows (except as specified in the l/c) presentation of two separate b/l shipped (or to be shipped) under two different vessel and voyage covering the same goods. (I assume the 1st b/l showing "on board" the port of loading as required by l/c and discharge (unload) at place of transshipment for on going voyage by the second vessel to the destination under the 2nd b/l.)

[PradeepT_old]

Nevin,

Presentation of two B/Ls is certainly not transhipment. The question is whether or not the LC provides for part shipment ? If it does, there is no discrepancy. However, if partial shipment is prohibited and two B/Ls issued by different carriers (and different vessels)are presented (even if signed by the same agent), the documents are discrepant even if the vessels leave on the same day for the same destination.

Regards,

Pradeep

[NevinErtan]

I should give a few more details. The bills of ladings show the same vessel name and route, have the same shipment date. The reason for issuance of seperate bills of lading is that the agent signing the b/ls is acting on behalf of two different carriers for the same journey. According to Art. 23 d-i, as the l/c prohibits transhipment and the presented b/ls indicate transshipment in containers, the entire ocean carriage is to be covered by one and same bill of lading.

[larryBacon]

Nevin,

it is still not clear. Two possibilities exist from your postings :

1. Goods shipped from Port A to Port C with transhipment Port B. One B/L presented from Port A to Port B + one B/L from Port B to Port C.

2. Two B/L presented from Port A to Port C via Port B. Both issued by the same agent, but different carriers on the same vessel & same voyage.

Since goods were shipped in containers, unless the LC precludes the relevant UCP clause, transhipment is allowed. Even if partial shipment is not permitted, goods shipped on the same vessel on the same voyage are not regarded as partial shipment.

Laurence

[NevinErtan]

Laurence,
The case is the second one. On both b/ls, vessel names, ports of loading, discharge, transhipment are the same. As I mentioned in my previous message, the only reason for two seperate b/ls is that there are two carriers involved partially for the goods shipped on the same vessel(s). There is no problem with regard to partial shipment. The question is since there are two b/ls, can we apply art. 23-d-i as the said article stipulates that the entire ocean carriage is to be covered by one and same bill of lading.

Regards,

[PradeepT_old]

Nevin,

The dilemma has arisen not from Art 23.d.i but from one agent signing two B/Ls for and on behalf of two carriers but for the same shipment in the same vessel from the same port of loading to the same port of discharge via the same port of transhipment. What puzzles is the fact there are two carriers for the same vessel with the same agent, a rarest of the rare situations but perhaps not impossible as is the case with your example.

Obviously, in this case, there is no part shipment and there is no difficulty on that count. However, the problem is with the wording of Art 23.d.i, as per which, the entire ocean carriage should be covered by “one and the same bill of lading”. Assuming that part shipment was allowed under the LC and the beneficiary presented two “separate” sets of documents with one of the two B/Ls, wouldn’t you have accepted the documents as in order since each B/L was “one and the same” although covered a part shipment in view that two sets of documents were presented ?

Like-wise, if part-shipment was not allowed under the LC, you would not have considered presentation of two B/Ls in one set of documents as part shipment provided there was the same carrier. Unfortunately, since there are two carriers now, going by the doctrine of “strict compliance”, perhaps the documents could be rejected for the reason that there is no “one and the same bill of lading”. However, going by the underlying principles and spirit of UCP, the documents could still be treated as in order on the pretext that although there are two B/Ls, each B/L on its own is “one and the same bill of lading” and covers shipment/transhipment for the goods represented therein.

I would like to hear from Lawrence in this regard.

Regards,

Pradeep

[larryBacon]

Since partial shipment is permitted, one should look upon this, for simplicity, as two separate shipments, each covered by "one and the same B/L". Therefore there is no discrepancy. As I said previously, even if partial shipment was not permitted, there would be no discrepancy.

For explanation of two carriers being involved, one example is the common practice of what is known as "slot-sharing agreements". Take a hypothetical situation where both P&O and Maersk each have one 5000 TEU vessel on the same route. They can agree to share slots on a 50/50 basis. Let us say that the first vessel to sail under this agreement is the MV Maersk1. This vessel would allocate 2500 slots to Maersk as carrier and 2500 slots to P&O as carrier. P&O would act similarly on their next vessel.
Therefore it is not unusual for two carriers to issue B/L for the same sailing on the same vessel.

Laurence

[NevinErtan]

Laurence,
Thanks for your comments but what about Art. 40-b? According to that, transport documents which appear on their face to indicate that shipment has been made on the same means of conveyance and for the same journey, provided they indicate the same destination, will not be regarded as covering partial shipments, which takes us back to Art. 23-d-i.