MULTI MODAL/ OCEAN B/L

[SJefferis]

We have a client who ships machinery from the Midlands to the Middle East. Credit Terms are CFR XXX Port, Middle East Country.
Port of Loading/ Taking Charge is UK Port. We received a Hamburg Sud Bill of Lading. These can be used as either form of B/L.
The 'place of receipt' box contained the Town where our clients factory is. Both the 'Place of Receipt' box and 'pre-carriage by' contain an asterix with a clause at the bottom of the L/C 'Applicable only when used for MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION'.
S.O.B. notation does not contain vessels name or port of loading.
L/C calls for Ocean B/L.
Discrepancy picked up by Middle East Bank 'On Board ' notation on B/L does not state port of loading and name of vessel on which goods were loaded.

Are they correct on this. Your comments would be appreciated.

[KimChristensen]

Dear Peter,

Sorry I am slow (it's friday) but please clarify:

1) Which transport document is required by he LC
2) Which shipment from/to ports are mentioned in the LC

3) Which places / ports / vessels are stated in which fields on the B/L
4) What does the on board notation say (vessel, port, date) on the B/L

Thanks
Kim

[SJefferis]

Thanks Kim,

1)Ocean B/L is req'd by L/C
2)Shipment is from UK Port to 'Middle East Port'
3) B/L states Place of Receipt Coventry Port of Loading Felixstowe.
4) 'On board' notation is just dated.

My question is by putting something in the 'place of receipt' box does that make the B/L multi modal, not withstanding the asterixed clause.

[LeoCullen]

Hi Peter,

As the credit requires a B/L, article 23 of the UCP is applied - which stipulates the following:

"If the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading, the on board notation must also include the port of loading stipulated in the Credit and the name of the vessel on which the goods have been loaded, even if they have been loaded on the vessel named in the bill of lading. This provision also applies whenever loading on board the vessel is indicated by pre-printed wording on the bill of lading,"

[KimChristensen]

Dear Peter,

Well okay – then it seems to me that UCP 500 article 23(a)(ii) is activated:

Quote
If the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading, the on board notation must also include the port of loading stipulated in the Credit and the name of the vessel on which the goods have been loaded
Unqoute

So it seems that they are right.

Whether or not it is in fact a multimodal transport document, does not change anything. The point is that the L/C calls for an Ocean B/L – and therefore article 23 applies.

Best regards
Kim

[SJefferis]

I Agree with that, but why have the Shipping company put a clause in the 'place of receipt' box that states ''Applicable only when used for MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION"?
Am I missing something?

[KimChristensen]

Dear Peter,



Please do not confuse a ”real” multimodal transport with a transport covered by UCP 500 article 26 ”Multimodal Transport Document”.

The reason that the shipping line does it this way, is that if the mentioned fields are used, then it is “by definition” a multimodal transport, as they would (usually) not used those fields to mention ports (= at least two modes of transport).

From a UCP perspective it is a bit more simple / complex (depending on how you look at it):

If the credit calls for an ocean B/L then the title is of no relevance. What is relevant is that the transport route (Port A to Port B) mentioned in the L/C is also reflected in the B/L (with correct on board notation etc).
If there is a place of receipt before Port A mentioned on the B/L then this is ok – but it will add the mentioned requirements to the in board notation.

Does this clarify / help you?

Best regards
Kim

[SJefferis]

So the bottom line is, if you are not going to complete the s.o.b. notation as per UCP, don't put anything in the 'Place of Receipt'
Box, Clause or no clause.

Thanks for your help

Regards

Peter

[KimChristensen]

Dear Peter,

Actually it is more complicated than that

As I see it, the bottom line is that the UCP 500 contains so many variations when it comes to “shipped on board”, that everyone gets confused – and when they try to apply common sense (like you did here) it goes all wrong …

Have a nice weekend.

Best regards
Kim

[POLTERD.]

Dear Peter,Dear Kim,
See R280 regarding UCP's art.23
(opinions of the ICC BC 1997).
Peter,as long as your b/l clearly evidence a single vessel covering the entire voyage it can't be a multimodal transport document.
bogdan.