L/C calls for a presentation of (among other documents) a CMR consigned to the applicant, original (copy for sender). The deferred payment details: 120 days from shipment date. Latest date of shipment defined by L/C is 23rd September 2005. Period for presentation is 21 days from shipment date.
The CMR presented shows the date of issuance 20th September 2005. but the box “Place and date of taking over the goods” shows 27th September 2005 (it is typed, not stamped).
UCP 500, Article 28 ii) says that the date of issuance will be deemed to be the date of shipment unless the transport document contains a reception stamp, in which case the date of the reception stamp will be deemed to be the date of shipment.
My question is: What is to be considered as the date of shipment in this case?
In practice, “reception stamp” is mostly seen on rail transport document. Article 28 covers road, rail or inland waterway transport documents, but could the UCP term “reception stamp” be applicable also to CMR? And, could be the date, named (typed but not stamped) in the CMR box “date of taking over the goods” be considered as “reception stamp”?
Looking forward to your comments.
Tanja
CMR – date of shipment
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
CMR – date of shipment
Dear Tanja,
Welcome to the forum.
I have not really been able to find any documentation on this in particular.
However – please see ICC Opinion TA.259 (April 1999):
QUOTE
… to stamp would therefore be to place additional information upon the document in question….
UNQUOTE
The scenario in this opinion is that the L/C calls for a B/L duly stamped “liner terms” – but “liner terms” is hand-written on the document. This was considered acceptable.
Hence, I would not hesitate to use the typed date for taking over the goods.
Best regards
Kim
Welcome to the forum.
I have not really been able to find any documentation on this in particular.
However – please see ICC Opinion TA.259 (April 1999):
QUOTE
… to stamp would therefore be to place additional information upon the document in question….
UNQUOTE
The scenario in this opinion is that the L/C calls for a B/L duly stamped “liner terms” – but “liner terms” is hand-written on the document. This was considered acceptable.
Hence, I would not hesitate to use the typed date for taking over the goods.
Best regards
Kim
CMR – date of shipment
Dear Kim,
Thanks for the welcome and for your prompt reply.
I just have received from our Chamber of Commerce the documentation for the next Banking Commission meeting (24-25.10.2005) whereby is the query/opinion Document 470/TA.597 with almost exact topic as I raised up in the Forum. It could be seen that there are two different opinions within the ICC Committee concerning reception stamp and CMR.
I do hope that the final conclusion will be reached during the Meeting.
In the meantime, it would be interesting to hear what the others in the Forum think about this topic.
Regards,
Tanja
Thanks for the welcome and for your prompt reply.
I just have received from our Chamber of Commerce the documentation for the next Banking Commission meeting (24-25.10.2005) whereby is the query/opinion Document 470/TA.597 with almost exact topic as I raised up in the Forum. It could be seen that there are two different opinions within the ICC Committee concerning reception stamp and CMR.
I do hope that the final conclusion will be reached during the Meeting.
In the meantime, it would be interesting to hear what the others in the Forum think about this topic.
Regards,
Tanja
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
CMR – date of shipment
Thanks Tanja,
Did not recall this one.
I am not sure there is any point in discussing ICC Opinions not yet approved by the Banking Commission here. I do however observe that the conclusion is identical to the one that I reached
So I will not vote against that one…
Best regards
Kim
Did not recall this one.
I am not sure there is any point in discussing ICC Opinions not yet approved by the Banking Commission here. I do however observe that the conclusion is identical to the one that I reached
So I will not vote against that one…Best regards
Kim
CMR – date of shipment
It’s quite possible that I am being a ‘bit thick’.
Sub-Art 28a(ii) requires that a road transport document ‘indicates that the goods have been received for SHIPMENT, DESPATCH OR CARRIAGE or wording to this effect’ [my emphasis]. However, I cannot see anything in -what I understand to be- the ‘standard’ CMR int’l consignment note (ICN) form that meets this requirement. For example, box 6, ‘Place and date of taking over the goods’ or box 17 ‘Goods received’ do not seem to meeet this requirement as they does not expressly state the goods have been ‘taken over’ or ‘received’ for ‘shipment, despatch or carriage’ or contain wording of similar effect.
Therefore, it seems to me that the carrier must have to add an additional statement to the standard CMR ICN form in order for it to meet the requirements of sub-Art 28a(ii). Have I understood correctly?
Grateful for any clarification. Thanks.
[edited 10/13/2005 12:21:09 PM]
Sub-Art 28a(ii) requires that a road transport document ‘indicates that the goods have been received for SHIPMENT, DESPATCH OR CARRIAGE or wording to this effect’ [my emphasis]. However, I cannot see anything in -what I understand to be- the ‘standard’ CMR int’l consignment note (ICN) form that meets this requirement. For example, box 6, ‘Place and date of taking over the goods’ or box 17 ‘Goods received’ do not seem to meeet this requirement as they does not expressly state the goods have been ‘taken over’ or ‘received’ for ‘shipment, despatch or carriage’ or contain wording of similar effect.
Therefore, it seems to me that the carrier must have to add an additional statement to the standard CMR ICN form in order for it to meet the requirements of sub-Art 28a(ii). Have I understood correctly?
Grateful for any clarification. Thanks.
[edited 10/13/2005 12:21:09 PM]
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
CMR – date of shipment
Dear Jeremy,
Big Thick … hmmm … had to consult a dictionary to find out what you potentially are
So - will not comment on that …. on the other one .. what can I say: Don’t go there! Technically speaking I guess that you are right (of course) – but I think that it is fair to say, that there is an “understanding” that it is “understood” from the document that goods have bla bla bla been taken over etc etc etc
I am not in the office right now, so can not check – but I am sure that the ICC publication UCP 400 & 500 compared in fact addressed this – and reach the same conclusion as you. I have never seen refusals raised on this ground. Have you or anyone else?
Best regards
Kim
Big Thick … hmmm … had to consult a dictionary to find out what you potentially are
So - will not comment on that …. on the other one .. what can I say: Don’t go there! Technically speaking I guess that you are right (of course) – but I think that it is fair to say, that there is an “understanding” that it is “understood” from the document that goods have bla bla bla been taken over etc etc etc
I am not in the office right now, so can not check – but I am sure that the ICC publication UCP 400 & 500 compared in fact addressed this – and reach the same conclusion as you. I have never seen refusals raised on this ground. Have you or anyone else?
Best regards
Kim
CMR – date of shipment
Hello Tanja and others,
My personal opinion is that issuance date of CMR is to be considered as shipment date.
(Pls compare this issue with point 151 ISBP publication (AWB).
But let's wait until ICC decide.
Nice day to all
My personal opinion is that issuance date of CMR is to be considered as shipment date.
(Pls compare this issue with point 151 ISBP publication (AWB).
But let's wait until ICC decide.
Nice day to all
CMR – date of shipment
Kim,
You’re right. Page 83. According to Mr. del Busto ‘It is the [UCP500] WG’s opinion that the sub-Article 28[a](ii) as worded does indeed allow banks to accept the CIM or CMR document as issued’. Unfortunately no justification is offered for this opinion. Perhaps it was considered that the statement in a CMR ICN that :
‘This carriage is subject … to the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road’,
taken together with completion of box 6, ‘Place and date of taking over the goods’ and/or box 17 ‘Goods received’ was considered to be an ‘indication’ of the goods ‘hav[ing] been received for … carriage’?
Notwithstanding the passage of time perhaps we could do with an ICC ‘Banking’ Commission opinion?
Jeremy
[edited 10/14/2005 10:16:08 AM]
You’re right. Page 83. According to Mr. del Busto ‘It is the [UCP500] WG’s opinion that the sub-Article 28[a](ii) as worded does indeed allow banks to accept the CIM or CMR document as issued’. Unfortunately no justification is offered for this opinion. Perhaps it was considered that the statement in a CMR ICN that :
‘This carriage is subject … to the Convention for the International Carriage of Goods by Road’,
taken together with completion of box 6, ‘Place and date of taking over the goods’ and/or box 17 ‘Goods received’ was considered to be an ‘indication’ of the goods ‘hav[ing] been received for … carriage’?
Notwithstanding the passage of time perhaps we could do with an ICC ‘Banking’ Commission opinion?
Jeremy
[edited 10/14/2005 10:16:08 AM]
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
CMR – date of shipment
Dear Mojca,
Welcome to the forum.
Hmmm. Please compare UCP 500 sub-article 27,a,iii to 28,a,ii
And by the way: is there a “para 151” like clause regarding Article 28?
Best regards
Kim
Welcome to the forum.
Hmmm. Please compare UCP 500 sub-article 27,a,iii to 28,a,ii
And by the way: is there a “para 151” like clause regarding Article 28?
Best regards
Kim
CMR – date of shipment
Hello,
With regard to AWB, UCP 500 Article 27. and point 151 in ISBP are very clear concerning what is to be considered as a date of shipment and what is to be disregarded in AWB in determining the date of shipment. It is hard to compare Article 27. with Article 28. Firstly, due to the fact that Article 28. covers 3 modes of transport and consequently different transport documents and secondly, due to the fact that there is a “bug” named “reception stamp” without any explanation or opinion (at least I haven’t found it) what it should be or considered to be.
My personal opinion is that the date in the box “Place and DATE of taking over the goods” cannot be disregarded if it is filled in. What is otherwise the purpose of it?
Regards,
Tanja
With regard to AWB, UCP 500 Article 27. and point 151 in ISBP are very clear concerning what is to be considered as a date of shipment and what is to be disregarded in AWB in determining the date of shipment. It is hard to compare Article 27. with Article 28. Firstly, due to the fact that Article 28. covers 3 modes of transport and consequently different transport documents and secondly, due to the fact that there is a “bug” named “reception stamp” without any explanation or opinion (at least I haven’t found it) what it should be or considered to be.
My personal opinion is that the date in the box “Place and DATE of taking over the goods” cannot be disregarded if it is filled in. What is otherwise the purpose of it?
Regards,
Tanja