ICC Digital Library Forum

we would appreciate your opinions on the following claimed discrepancy :
we have a bill of lading on the letter of head of the carrier.
At the signature line we have the following:
"carrier name" as carrier
by (signature )
"agent company" as agent.
The issuing bank noted that the bill of lading signed by "agent name"as agent "only but not identify on whose behalf it is signing. As per UCP 600 ISBP 94a, if an agent signs a b/l , the signing agent must be identified as agent for or on behalf of the carrier.

We would appreciate your comments.

I would first observe that 94(a) says:
‘If an agent signs a bill of lading on behalf of the carrier, the agent must be identified as agent and must identify on whose behalf it is signing, UNLESS THE CARRIER HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED ELSEWHERE ON THE BILL OF LADING.’ [my emphasis]
It seems to me that -taken in its entirety- the para is simply saying that it must be clear that the agent is signing for a ‘party’ that IS indicated to be the carrier. In this particular case it seems a party is stated to be carrier and the ‘signing company’ is stated to be their agent. As a result the BL does not appear to me to be non-compliant for the reason stated by the issuing bank, i.e. the agent is identified as agent and it is identified that the agent is signing on behalf of the carrier.