ICC Digital Library Forum

Hi all,

I would like to have your opinions on the following matter:
+ L/C requires "“full set of clean original Bill of Ladings, made out to the order of the issuing bank”.
+ B/L presented with pre-printed clause "In witness whereof the number of original Bills of Lading as stated herebelow, all of this tenor and date, have been signed, one of which being accomplished, the other(s), if any, to be void. If required by the carrier, one (1) original Bill of Lading must be surrendered in exchange for the goods or delivery order."
+ The issuing bank concluded: "B/L shows “if required by the carrier-Clause” is discrepant". It is true or false?

I hope to receive your quick responses. Thank you very much!

It is a wholly invalid discrepancy. Neither the credit (unless there was something in it you have not mentioned), not even impliedly, nor the UCP prohibits such 'clauses'. Furthermore, it is part of the terms and conditions of carriage and thus is covered by the second sentence of 20(a)(v).

It is not a discrepancy. The issuing bank needs to elaborate what is it about the clause that makes it a discrepancy.

Regards, Gabriel

I am a bit reluctant to ”open” this discussion, but I find it fair to add that there is no clear answer to this question.

This issue has been discussed (!!) quite a lot – and the last statement from the ICC is the letter from Guy Sebban dated 23 October 2008 to “members and observers of ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice, ICC Commission on Commercial Law and Practice, ICC Commission on Transport and Logistics and ICC National Committees and Groups” titled: “Bill of lading delivery clauses”
This letter ends with the following statement:

“In consequence, we would like to advise that no Banking Commission opinion can be given on this issue.”

So in reality we are without any kind of guidance from the ICC on this very troublesome issue – and as the discussion so clearly have indicated one can surely argue both ways.

For whatever it is worth I would add that I agree with Jeremy and Gabriel on a personal level.

Best regards
Kim