Port to port shipment

[Shahed]

May I have yr comment on the following case :

We have issued our import L/C to a beneficiary in Japan with the following details :

1. L/C calls for a port to port shipment from Indonesian Port(s) (field 44E) to Japanese Port(s) (field 44F) with clean on board ocean bills of lading is required
2. L/C calls for shipment term : CFR Japanese Port(s)
3. L/C calls for an additional condition : B/L must specify the name of loading port and discharging port

We have rec'd the docs from the negotiating bank and detected the following discrepancy :

- Inv showing shipment term CFR Imari Japan whereas B/L showing port of discharge : Nagasaki, Japan

We have sent our refusal advice to the negotiating bank. However, the negotiating bank has rejected the discrepancy

QUOTE
WE REJECT YOUR ADVICE OF REFUSAL CAUSE CLEARLY MENTION ON THE L/C TRANSHIPMENT ARE ALLOWED WHEREAS THE ACTUAL FINAL DESTINATION WAS TO IMARI, JAPAN. THEREFORE DOCS REGARDED CLEAN.
UNQUOTE

From our point of view, since our L/C has required a port to port shipment and a clean on board Ocean B/L to be presented. Therefore, the shipment term under this shipment must be CFR Nagasaki, Japan (i.e. the discharging port indicated on the B/L) nowhere else. Besides, according to Incoterms, CFR should be followed by a named port of destination, accordingly Nagasaki, Japan, the discharging port, on the B/L is the port of destination, the Final Destination : Imari, Japan Door should be ignored since it has only (For the Merchant's Reference). Furthermore, transhipment is allowed or is not allowed under this case is irrelevant, it will not affect the shipment term since according to Art. 20b of UCP600 'Transhipment means unloading from one vessel and reloading to another vessel during the carriage from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the credit'.

Therefore, we consider the discrepancy is valid.

Your professional comment by return is very much appreciated.

Shahed
Toronto

[DanielD]

Shahed,

No discrepancy for me
Daniel

[JessieLiew]

Shahed,
Your LC calls port to port shipment to Japanese Port(s). It seems that you have receive a B/L showing the port of discharge as Nagasaki, Japan with a place of final destination as Imari,Japan. Since Imari is also a Japanese port , the presentation of an invoice showing CFR Imari, Japan would be consistent with the LC terms and therefore would not consistute a discrepancy unless the B/L shows the Incoterm as “CFR Nagasaki”.
Regards,
Robert

[NigelHolt]

Shahed,

I can only assume that the discrepancy your bank has raised is based on sub-Article 14(d) given the way you describe it.

If the B/L shows the place of final destination as Imari I do not see any data conflict between the B/L and the invoice.

If the B/L does not show Imari as the place of final destination then this would seem to me to be a data conflict unless it is the case that it is not isbp to compare the incoterm quoted in the invoice with the relevant detail in the transport document.

Regards, Jeremy

[Shahed]

Any ICC opinion to support your views that docs are discrepant ? Shahed