We would appreciate your valued opinion on the following:-
We are in possession of a bill of a Bill of Lading issued by the Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. Geneva.
The bill of lading has been signed off with the wording "Mediterranean Shipping Company (PTY) Ltd, signed on behalf of the master (S.D.C. Arimondo)MSC Agent (AS Agents)"
The confirming bank has refused documents on the basis "B/L omits to state the name of the carrier".
We as the advising/negotiating bank maintain that this is not a valid discrepancy as on the face of the bill of lading in bold letters in the top left hand corner the name of the carrier has been identified i.e. Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. Geneva and the right hand top corner of the bill of lading has wording "MSCUDN and the bill of lading number". Together with the fact that the bill of lading has been signed off by a named agent on behalf of the named master complies with Article 23.
Your urgent responses would be appreciated.
Regards
Neil
Article 23(a)
Article 23(a)
Neil,
From the information you provide it would appear that MSC is not actually stated to be carrier, i.e. the word ‘carrier’ (or similar) is not present. Position Paper 4 confirms -I believe- that the party on whose behalf the b/l is issued must be actually described as the carrier. In other words, a ‘pre-printed wording … that the goods have been loaded on board’ or ‘a notation … which gives the date on which the goods have been loaded on board’ is -of itself- not sufficient to indicate the party on whose behalf the b/l is issued is the carrier.
Will UCP600 carry this absurdity forward? What do you think?
Jeremy
From the information you provide it would appear that MSC is not actually stated to be carrier, i.e. the word ‘carrier’ (or similar) is not present. Position Paper 4 confirms -I believe- that the party on whose behalf the b/l is issued must be actually described as the carrier. In other words, a ‘pre-printed wording … that the goods have been loaded on board’ or ‘a notation … which gives the date on which the goods have been loaded on board’ is -of itself- not sufficient to indicate the party on whose behalf the b/l is issued is the carrier.
Will UCP600 carry this absurdity forward? What do you think?
Jeremy
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Article 23(a)
Dear Neil,
I guess this is one of the places where it becomes obvious that the LC operate on another “level” than the rest of the world. In any case, the fact that someone’s “B/L form” is used does not make them “carrier”. So I guess that “UCP technically” speaking I agree with Jeremy that the word “carrier” must be used to identify the carrier.
I know this is under discussion for the UCP 600 – but I guess the dilemma here is that the LC banker must determine based on the documents alone whether or not the documents comply – and how can (s)he know who is carrier if it does not appear from the document?
I do hope however that no “transport guys” are reading this topic – as they would simply fail to see the problem here.
Best regards
Kim
I guess this is one of the places where it becomes obvious that the LC operate on another “level” than the rest of the world. In any case, the fact that someone’s “B/L form” is used does not make them “carrier”. So I guess that “UCP technically” speaking I agree with Jeremy that the word “carrier” must be used to identify the carrier.
I know this is under discussion for the UCP 600 – but I guess the dilemma here is that the LC banker must determine based on the documents alone whether or not the documents comply – and how can (s)he know who is carrier if it does not appear from the document?
I do hope however that no “transport guys” are reading this topic – as they would simply fail to see the problem here.
Best regards
Kim