Multimodal b/l presented i/o a Marine B/L

[MikeSilverman]

Can I get some opinion's in regards to a a b/l stating either multimodal transport or port to port shipment. See example below.

The l/c calls for direct shipment from India to Montreal Canada, and for a marine b/l stating freight collect.

Problem: A transport document presented stating bill of lading (for multimodal transport or port to port shipment). B/l shows port of loading as India, Port of discharge Montreal and final destination of Montreal and freight collect.

How could you decide if a multimodal b/l or a marine b/l was presented.


[edited 2/28/2005 11:29:15 PM: Changes ]

[LisaVC]

Mike,

I'm confused. What extra shipping charges is the applicant paying for? The inland freight from port of Montreal to the final destination in Montreal? The applicant would be responsible for that anyway even if an ocean B/L were presented. The short answer to your question is no. Because the UCP allows the B/L to be "however named" and your port of loading, port of discharge and freight collect have been complied with, then the MMTD complies (insofar as the information you gave us, though it may be discrepant for other reasons).

Lisa

[KimChristensen]

Hi Mike,

I would agree with Lisa. Please see UCP 500 sub-article 23,a,iii,a

Best regards
Kim

[larryBacon]

If final destination was other than Montreal, this would indicate a MM B/L instead of the marine B/L required for the LC. As it is, final destination is like additional information above that required for LC purposes.

Laurence

[KimChristensen]

Dear Mike,

You ask: “How could you decide if a multimodal b/l or a marine b/l was presented”

I think perhaps it would help, if you look at it the other way around:

1) An article 23 documents required in the L/C.
2) Is the presented document in compliance with article 23? (as Lisa mentioned: However named)

In your case, the B/L shows shipment from India Port to Montreal Port. So no problem!

Laurence; Please explain why you think it would make a difference if Final Destination was different than Montreal?

Best regards
Kim

[asamaha]

I think this B/L would have been considered a marine B/L if it has mentioned 'Port of Montreal' (and not Montreal) as the final destination.
Antoine

[larryBacon]

Where the title of the B/L does not indicate whether this is Marine B/L or MM B/L, you must judge by the detail of the B/L to determine the category.

EXAMPLE :
LC calls for shipment from Antwerp to Miami.
Case 1 : B/L shows port of shipment Antwerp, port of transhipment New York and destination Miami.
Case 2 : B/L shows port of shipment Antwerp, port of discharge New York and destination Miami.

In case 1, the transhipment vessel may or may not be shown, but it is clear that goods are being shipped all the way to Miami. Therefore B/L is Marine B/L.
In case 2, New York is shown as port of discharge. The lack of a transhipment port would indicate that goods are being sent by other means of transport (road, rail etc). Therefore the B/L is a MM B/L.

Laurence

[KimChristensen]

Dear Laurence,

I am trying to follow you here – so please help me:

I take it that in your example the L/C requirement is an article 23 document. Right?

Case 1; I never thought of a situation, just like this before. It seems to me to be rather theoretic. A B/L form that has a field for “port of transhipment” would also have a field for “port of discharge” – where Miami would be shown. This would be the right field to use.
I can’t decide whether I agree with you or not on this one; whether it is stated without a doubt that the goods will be transported to Miami on vessel. Hmm think I would have to see the document

Case 2; I agree with you so far, that is does not appear from the document, that the goods are transported to Miami on vessel. Thereby it is in breach on article 23,a,iii.
I would not, however see this as an indication that it will be sent via a mode of transport different than sea – it just opens for other options.

I think that what confuses me here is that the discussion mixes the L/C perspective – and how things are in “real life” ….

From an L/C perspective; the L/C requirement rules! Meaning that provided an article 23 document is required, then article 23 should be complied with … and the same goes for article 26.
In real life – this is a different story. You may have a transport document showing that the goods are transported between the ports mentioned in the credit by vessel – but in addition to that – shows a leg before and after the required ports. Then you will have a document that complies with article 23, but still, technically (in real life) is a “multimodal transport”.

This was the basis for my question on your March 1 posting. From a “real lift perspective” I would agree with you – but not from an L/C perspective.

So again: When reading L/C documents, do not ask if a port-to-port or a multimodal transport document have been presented. Check the L/C requirement. Determine the article to use for examining the document, and check the document on that basis….

That was a few words on a popular topic from Snowy Copenhagen.

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

Given the provisions of sub-Article 23(a) I have it say I find it most odd that someone would worry whether or not a transport document was a ‘bill of lading ‘ or a ‘multi-modal transport document’ (MMTD) where the credit called for a bill of lading (whether ‘marine’, ‘ocean’ or otherwise). In fact, sub-Article 23a is apparently worded so as to preclude them from doing so. In the case of the port of loading and port of discharge all one has to do -& is obliged to do- is to see if the document meets the requirements of sub-Article 23a(iii). If it does, it complies whether or not the document is a so-called MMTD. If it does not, it does not comply but the fact that the document is a MMTD is not relevant to the discrepancy cited.

That this is not apparently clearly understood, more than 10 years after the publication of UCP500, is very worrying indeed.

[edited 3/2/2005 4:16:35 PM]

[LisaVC]

100% agreement with Jeremy from not-so-snowy-but-still-rather-cold Chicago!

Lisa