on board on pre-carriage vessel

PhanThanhNhan · Post by **PhanThanhNhan** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:00 am

Dear all,
Pls comment on our following case:
- B/L show:
Pre-carriage by vessel A
Ocean Vessel: Vessel B
Place of receipt: HOCHIMINH port
Port of loading: HOCHIMINH port
- B/L show shipped on board on vessel A dated 20/9/2008 at HOCHIMINH port
- L/C not stipulate any special condition
The issuing bank quoted the discrepancies of our docs as follows:
- On board mention on B/L indicates feeder vessel i/o main one
- All docs refer to feeder vessel
We didn't agree with the above discs because of no regulation in UCP 600 and L/C
Thanks a lot

RolandSatchell · Post by **RolandSatchell** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:00 am

The issuing Bank is correct in their discrepancy. As much as there was only one port, the B/l does show two vessel in the same port which clearly implies that this is a large port where goods will move from one vessel to a anther perhaps a smaller top a larger due to possible shallow waters. There the is a requirement for separate on board notation similar to the intended vessel concept ie must have port, vessel, date an words on board. The issue here is that you do not know at what point the B/L was issued was it when goods were placed on board vessel A - then this is not for the ocean journey. The applicant requested an Ocean B/l to cover ocean journey, hence it must be clear on the B./l that the goods are on board the ocean going vessel. In this it is not clear hence the discrepancy.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:00 am

I am struggling to see how the BL described does not meet the requirements of sub-Art. 20(a)(ii) & (iii), especially when read in conjunction with para 98 of ISBP681. I am sure there are relevant UCP500 opinions (can’t re-call any UCP600 ones) on this question but will leave you, PTN, to search for them.
[edited 10/23/2008 5:16:29 PM]

JLee · Post by **JLee** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:00 am

Hi there, please refer to R457.

Regards/Jack Chan

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:00 am

Yes, case 1 seems to be along the lines of the BL here and -unusually for me- I agree with the logic of the ‘Banking' Commission. So I am persuaded that the BL described above does not comply with sub-Art20(a)(iii) as it does not indicate shipment from the port of loading stated in the credit.

Whether or not the issuing bank’s refusal actually reflects this seems to me questionable.

[edited 10/24/2008 9:25:03 AM]