Paragraph 13 of ISPB 645 states that a transport document must be dated even if a credit does not expressly so require. If a transport document (bill of lading) shows Cargo receipt date& on board date but the third box marked DATED is left blank, would you consider the document as discrepant? If yes, please advise a reason for the importance of the date of the bill of lading in this particular case and why the on board date or the cargo receipt date does not satisfy such requirement. If no, please provide reason for your decision and state whether you think it satisfies paragraph 13 of ISBP 645 or not.
Best regards
Abdulkader
[edited 9/27/2006 10:54:16 AM]
Date of Transport Document
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Date of Transport Document
Dear Abdul,
Art.13 of ISBP makes reference only to issuing dates of transport documents,i.e.b/l,cmr,rwb,awb.
this fact is clear as the reference is made to all transport docs and is known cmr,rwb and awb doesn't have an on board notation.
furthermore,art.23a(ii),25a(iv) and 26a(ii) of UCP are all making reference to "date of issuance" .
so,in my opinion,date of issuance is a mandatory information.
Best wishes to you,
Bogdan
Art.13 of ISBP makes reference only to issuing dates of transport documents,i.e.b/l,cmr,rwb,awb.
this fact is clear as the reference is made to all transport docs and is known cmr,rwb and awb doesn't have an on board notation.
furthermore,art.23a(ii),25a(iv) and 26a(ii) of UCP are all making reference to "date of issuance" .
so,in my opinion,date of issuance is a mandatory information.
Best wishes to you,
Bogdan
Date of Transport Document
Abdulkader,
I would regard the document as ‘dated’ by reason of the cargo receipt date OR the on board date.
Is there not an opinion that confirms that data may be omitted from a ‘field’ / ‘box’ on a document unless it is stated -on the document- that the document will not be valid if the ‘field’ / ‘box’ is not completed?
Jeremy
I would regard the document as ‘dated’ by reason of the cargo receipt date OR the on board date.
Is there not an opinion that confirms that data may be omitted from a ‘field’ / ‘box’ on a document unless it is stated -on the document- that the document will not be valid if the ‘field’ / ‘box’ is not completed?
Jeremy
Date of Transport Document
Dear Jeremy,
I don't think this applies in any cases.For example, b/ls don't stipulate that box for loading/discharging port are mandatory but you know must be filled out.Examples can continue with any informations you know that must be written on the face of b/ls.
Bogdan
I don't think this applies in any cases.For example, b/ls don't stipulate that box for loading/discharging port are mandatory but you know must be filled out.Examples can continue with any informations you know that must be written on the face of b/ls.
Bogdan
Date of Transport Document
Dear Bogdan,
The port of loading and discharge boxes have to be completed by virtue of the express terms of the credit, not because one ‘knows’ they must be filled in.
Jeremy
The port of loading and discharge boxes have to be completed by virtue of the express terms of the credit, not because one ‘knows’ they must be filled in.
Jeremy
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Date of Transport Document
Jeremy / Bogdan,
Many thanks for your response. We had an argument with a bank on this issue which was eventually got settled.
I would agree with Jeremy that the bill of lading is 'dated' as long as it shows the date of receipt of cargo or the on board date. Similarly if an insurance policy shows the effective date but does not show the date the policy was issued, I would consider the policy as 'dated' in compliance with paragraph 13 of ISPB 645. I believe paragraph 13 of ISPB requires a document must be dated and that does not always necessarily mean date of issuance. As you can see the on board date in a bill of lading or the effective date on an insurance policy have more weight than the date of issuance of the these documents.
best regards
Abdulkader
[edited 9/28/2006 1:12:49 PM]
Many thanks for your response. We had an argument with a bank on this issue which was eventually got settled.
I would agree with Jeremy that the bill of lading is 'dated' as long as it shows the date of receipt of cargo or the on board date. Similarly if an insurance policy shows the effective date but does not show the date the policy was issued, I would consider the policy as 'dated' in compliance with paragraph 13 of ISPB 645. I believe paragraph 13 of ISPB requires a document must be dated and that does not always necessarily mean date of issuance. As you can see the on board date in a bill of lading or the effective date on an insurance policy have more weight than the date of issuance of the these documents.
best regards
Abdulkader
[edited 9/28/2006 1:12:49 PM]
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Date of Transport Document
First of all I guess that I would expect a bill of lading to have an issuance date.
That being said it is one of those cases where – if read literally – the LC Rules/practices etc. may create a result which to me is wrong. Like in this case if documents are refused based on the absence of an issuance date, but where the transport document complies with relevant article (e.g. 23) and does in fact include an onboard notation.
One can only guess what would be the outcome if such case was presented to the ICC BC (I have not been able to fine relevant opinions), but I would hope that the “issuance” date would be “interpreted” to also cover the onboard date.
(And similar with insurance as Abdulkader mentions).
Best retards
Kim
That being said it is one of those cases where – if read literally – the LC Rules/practices etc. may create a result which to me is wrong. Like in this case if documents are refused based on the absence of an issuance date, but where the transport document complies with relevant article (e.g. 23) and does in fact include an onboard notation.
One can only guess what would be the outcome if such case was presented to the ICC BC (I have not been able to fine relevant opinions), but I would hope that the “issuance” date would be “interpreted” to also cover the onboard date.
(And similar with insurance as Abdulkader mentions).
Best retards
Kim
Date of Transport Document
A freind has requested me to seek the forum's view on a similar issue.
Credit prohibits presentation of documents issued prior to the date of credit. The B/L presented is dated later than the credit issuance date but the on board date is prior to the credit issuance date.
Regards
Khalid
Credit prohibits presentation of documents issued prior to the date of credit. The B/L presented is dated later than the credit issuance date but the on board date is prior to the credit issuance date.
Regards
Khalid
Date of Transport Document
Dear Khalid,
In my opinion as long as b/l has a date of issue preprinted box having printed/typewritten a date of issuance that is after issuing date of the l/c is ok ,even if the on board date is prior to l/c's issuing date.
the l/c condition clearly reffers to issuing date of the documents and not to an earliest shipment date.
if l/c whould stipulate that shipment must not be effected prior to issuing date of the l/c ,whould be a discrepancy.
regards,
bogdan
In my opinion as long as b/l has a date of issue preprinted box having printed/typewritten a date of issuance that is after issuing date of the l/c is ok ,even if the on board date is prior to l/c's issuing date.
the l/c condition clearly reffers to issuing date of the documents and not to an earliest shipment date.
if l/c whould stipulate that shipment must not be effected prior to issuing date of the l/c ,whould be a discrepancy.
regards,
bogdan
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
Date of Transport Document
I believe this is not as simple as it seems to be. Following are my views:
1) Article 23a(ii) of UCP 500 considers the date of issuance as the on board date and date of shipment in case the on board notation is pre-printed on the bill of lading and no such date is mentioned.
2) Paragraph 45 ( c ) of ISBP 645 considers the on board date as the bill of lading date for purpose of calculation of maturity date for payment even if the on board date is prior to or earlier than the date of issuance of the bill of lading.
Though not explicitly stated in the LC, I am with those who believe that the intention of the clause also implies to put limitation on the earliest date of shipment i.e. it should not be prior to the date of issuance of the LC. Therefore, I am inclined to be with those opinions who would consider the documents presented as discrepant despite the bill of lading bears a date of issuance after the date of issuance of the LC.
Best Regards
1) Article 23a(ii) of UCP 500 considers the date of issuance as the on board date and date of shipment in case the on board notation is pre-printed on the bill of lading and no such date is mentioned.
2) Paragraph 45 ( c ) of ISBP 645 considers the on board date as the bill of lading date for purpose of calculation of maturity date for payment even if the on board date is prior to or earlier than the date of issuance of the bill of lading.
Though not explicitly stated in the LC, I am with those who believe that the intention of the clause also implies to put limitation on the earliest date of shipment i.e. it should not be prior to the date of issuance of the LC. Therefore, I am inclined to be with those opinions who would consider the documents presented as discrepant despite the bill of lading bears a date of issuance after the date of issuance of the LC.
Best Regards