Bill of Lading - Port of Discharge Incorrect

AndyWyatt · Post by **AndyWyatt** » Fri May 05, 2006 1:00 am

Egyptian Bank L/C calls for shipment to "Damietta or Alexandria Port". Docs presented showed POD as "El Dekeila, Alexandria Port". I/B refuses docs on basis of "Port of discharge showing 'El Dekeila, Alexandria Port' in all docs. i/o Alexandria Port". Views please.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Sat May 06, 2006 1:00 am

Andy,

My view is that the b/l shows -on the face of it- that the goods have been shipped to a particular part -El Dekeila- of Alexandria Port. Therefore, that -on the face of it- the goods have been shipped to Alexandria Port. Consequently, the POD requirement of the credit has been met.

Give my regards to Marion. Perhaps see you on the 10th.

Jeremy

PradeepT_old · Post by **PradeepT_old** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:00 am

Andy,

Just out of curiosity. Did the I/B eventually accept the documents ? Obviously documents were not discrepant.

Pradeep Taneja,
Bahrain

AndyWyatt · Post by **AndyWyatt** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:00 am

Hi Pradeep

Thanks for your feedback.

Documents taken up, eventually.

Regards
Andy

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:00 am

I have found afterwards that this issue is actually somewhat controversial; and that not few LC bankers would in fact treat this as a discrepancy.
Of course such things come in many variations; and recently I have been involved in one of those where the LC stated shipment to Hong Kong. In the port of discharge field were stated “Hong Kong CY”.
Are there any views on that one? Is it the same principle as the original posting – or is this in fact discrepant because the CY (Container Yard) may in fact be placed far far from the water?

Thanks
Kim

KhalidI · Post by **KhalidI** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:00 am

Kim,
Opinion R282 is something that may be in line with your query.
regards
Khalid

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Khalid,

Thanks a lot. I did know that one actually – but found it to cover a slightly different scenario – as the issue is whether or not sub-article 23(a)(ii) (If the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading) is activated.

In any case “..they are to be deemed one and the same place ..” ought to be strong enough.

Best regards
Kim

PradeepT_old · Post by **PradeepT_old** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Kim,

I would have had no doubts if Hong Kong CY was indicated as place of final destination, but since it is indicated as Port of Discharge instead of Hong Kong, notwithstanding the existence of opinion R282 and the strength of, "..they are to be deemed one and the same place ..”, I would be careful before taking up the documents.

Regards,

Pradeep

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Pradeep,

Thanks – but then just tell me – what is the difference between the opening question here (El Dekeila, Alexandria Port) – and the “Hong Kong CY example” – LC-wise of course.

Thanks and Best regards
Kim

PradeepT_old · Post by **PradeepT_old** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Kim,

I fathomthat there is no difference. Besides, I never said that I would not take up documents. I just said that I would be rather careful. Knowing the Middle Eastern LC practices, I advocate care ! Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Regards,

Pradeep,