ICC Digital Library Forum

Dear people,
DC requires BL (art. 20) evidencing shipment from Rotterdam to Indian port.
B/L presented:
-shipped preprinted
-Place of receipt: Dordrecht
-Port of loading Rotterdam -vessel X
At first sight, no problem, as the carriage from Dordrecht to Rotterdam cannot have been effected by vessel so the preprinted "shipped" applies to vessel X, port of loading: Rotterdam. But if you read the small print (on the front)
we can read:" shipped bla, bla, for carriage from the port of loading (or the place of receipt if mentioned above) bla, bla, ..."
So for me the B/L is a TD as per art. 19 and should include a notation "on board" with vessel, etc... (as in 500)
Would you agree?
Regards
Daniel

Yes.

Please see Gary Collyer's comment (Coastinline Solution Newsleeter - Issue 13. 11/13/07), also Official Opinion TA635rev - Unpublished.

Regards,
Albert

Dear Daniel,

I must admit this question puzzles me a great deal – and I am not even sure I understand exactly what you are asking?

You say “art. 19 or art.20” – but the LC requires a B/L … meaning that it should be examined according to article 20. Where does article 19 come from in this case?

Further I simply do not (for the purpose of UCP 600) understand the phrase “B/L is a TD as per art. 19” ??

That being said I do (I think at least agree to the conclusion – that an “extended on board notation” is required – because the B/L includes a place of receipt prior to the port of loading required by the LC.
Not that I personally find this a logic and sound conclusion – but this applies (I assume) even where the leg from the place of receipt to the port of loading is done by truck. I think that this will be crystal clear after 24 October

Best regards
Kim

The article to apply is determined by the terms of the credit and not the document presented unless the credit allows a document that falls within either article. Thus there can be no debate on the question here: Article 20 applies irrespective of the document actually presented.

Jeremy, Albert: thank you
Kim,
What is puzzling is the fact that DCs still require a TD according to art. 20 whereas in the real world a multimodal transport has been effected by the carrier. I think you wrote something about it. Unlike ISBP 97 a notation shipped does not always seem to mean "shipped on board". I will add that close attention should be paid to the small prints of TDs. Daniel

Dear Daniel,

You are so right that that I did in fact write something about it; perhaps too much

Anyway … you are also right of course that you can have a transport document that complies with UCP 600 article 20; i.e. acceptable as a “port-to-port” document for the LC banker – that for the transport industry is in fact a multimodal transport document; either because of its title, the applicable rules or the content the document.

However at this point in time; even I have to accept that the banking industry has chosen a very abstract approach to this issue – that seems 180 degree from the perception in the real world

That approach dictates for example that:

1) It is the wording in the LC that determines which UCP 600 transport article should be the basis for the examination of the document.

2) It is (amongst other things) the ports/places mentioned in the LC that is relevant for the purpose of determining compliance with the required UCP 600 transport article.

3) Examination is based on the “however named” principle; meaning for example that even though a Bill of lading is required – the document may be titled “Multimodal Transport Document” – as long as it complies with UCP 600 article 20.

So in relation to your initial question … and sorry for teasing you … you are correct that the presented document may in fact (for the transport industry) be a multimodal transport document.. but as long as the LC calls for a bill of lading – then article 20 applies – not article 19.

I am not sure (do not know for sure in fact) if you are correct about your “shipped” versus “shipped on board” comment (??) I think it is because of exactly that; i.e. wording in bills of lading that the “shipped” may refer to the place of receipt – that the current position is that an extended on board notation is required where that field is different from the loading port as per the LC. I have been discussing that with Maersk Line; they claim that this is not correct (not for them at least); They would never release a “shipped B/L” … before it is in fact shipped on board at the port of loading.

And there I did it again – wrote too much about this topic

Best regards
Kim