ICC Digital Library Forum

Dear colleagues,
we would be very grateful for your opinion on the following matter:
L/C called for AWB bearing the flight stamp. Period for presentation: 21 days after the date of shipment.

Beneficiary presented AWB showing two stamps bearing identical data but showing two
different dates of 2006/10/26 and 2006/10/11 and the issuance date being 2006/10/11.

One stamp dd 2006/10/11 which we considered to be the part of authentication ( and acceptance for carriage)
by the carrier was located in the bottom right corner near the issuing carrier's signature and stamp.
Second stamp dd 2006/10/26 was located over the box 'Requested Flight/Date'.
The box 'Requested Flight/Date' contained the flight no. and date '26OCT.'
We considered the second stamp as the flight stamp bearing the exact flight date.

Upon receipt of documents, the opening bank refused the docs stating the following discrepancy:
'exact date of shipment date is not clear and if date 2006/10/11 to be considered as shipment docs will be stale'.

In reply to our statement that the discrepancy is groundless in view of:
1. Art. 27 iii: ‘where the credit calls for an actual date of dispatch, indicates a specific
notation of such date, the date of dispatch so indicated on the air transport document will be
deemed to be the date of shipment.
2. If opening bank consider date 2006 Oct.11 as shipment date, we’d like to note, that above
LC available with our bank and place of expiry in Moscow, therefore, we suppose that docs
couldn’t be stale and presented in due time, i.e. on 2006 Nov.1 (21t day after shipment).
3. The flight stamp with date 2006 Oct.26 was not located in the box marked ‘for carrier use
only’ or similar expression’ and may be put down on an AWB by different modes.

the opening bank sent us the following clarification of their position and insisted on their refusal:
'... our swift refers to two flight stamps on AWB showing different shipment date and our previous swift still is in force.
So please refund docs value as instructed in our message’

In our opinion the opening banks misinterprets art.27 mixing two expressions: 'date of shipment – flight stamp' and 'issuance date'.
Also, we’d like to know where the flight stamp should be put on AWB to avoid misunderstanding in future.
Further we would highly appreciate your comments on the data content of the flight stamps. Is there any minimum requirements?

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Vladimir
[edited 12/7/2006 9:16:24 AM]
[edited 12/7/2006 9:23:21 AM]

Dear Vladimir,

It is one of those where it would be so much nicer to have the LC and the document in front of you

I guess that the first step would be how to interpret “flight stamp”. Is this the same as “actual date of dispatch”? I would be inclined to think that it is. If so it would be the “flight stamp” date that should determine “shipment date”.

I would see it similar to the scenario where a B/L has two separate on-board notations. In general that would be ok – provided of course that (at least) one of them complies with LC terms, and that it is clear when the goods is on board where, and – for port-to-port shipments – on what vessel.

From your posting I am not sure that I understand what would be the content of these two “flight stamps” – what do they say exactly?

When a LC calls for “Actual flight date” or similar I would think it should be clear from the document at what date goods are dispatched from the airport stipulated in the LC. So if there are two “actual flight dates” – but only one “airport” then in general I would consider this a discrepancy.
(I do not see anything in the rules to the effect that the “actual flight date notation” should also contain the flight number).

So besides the fact that I am a bit uneasy with the term “flight stamp” (as I do not know exactly what it means), then I would think that you have a tough case, because I would think that the issuing bank has been trying to indicate that they want the document to indicate the actual flight date – and I do not see this clearly in the document from the given information.

As for your last questions I am not sure that I can answer that clearly. In general I do not think that you should use the phrase “flight stamp”. I think that you should say “AWB showing actual flight date” in order to refer to UCP 500 article 27(a)(iii) and ISBP para 150-151. In that case the document should clearly indicate at what date goods are dispatched from the airport mentioned in the LC.
I have no idea where this information should be on the document – but surely not in the box marked “for carriers use only”.

Best regards
Kim

Dear, Kim

Thanks, you‘ve removed my doubts to some extent.
I do agree with you that instruction must be clear and precise and I think the closer to UCP / rules the better.

But in our case the info in the box 'Requested Flight/Date' (But not ‘For carrier use only’) contained the flight no. and date '26OCT.' corresponding to the ‘second stamp’ bearing carriers name and date 26-10-2006 could be treated as a confirmation of actual date of dispatch and thus it is just a ‘paper’ discrepancy.

And now I‘ve got stuck with another LC calling for ‘…AIRWAYBILL … INDICATING FLIGHT NUMBER AND DATE …’

I’m wondering did the issuer mean an actual date of dispatch as per UCP.
What date to be considered as the date of shipment ‘flight date’ or the date of issuance of AWB.
Best regards,
Vald
[edited 12/8/2006 10:50:41 AM]