ICC Digital Library Forum

I would appreciate your comments about the following situation:
A beneficiary of a letter of credit allowing partial shipments, presented a single commercial invoice accompanied by six different CMR corresponding to the merchandise that he had dispatched in six different dates, in different trucks, from the place of taking in charge to the place of destination stated in the credit. Three CMR evidenced a date of issuance and taking in charge which was later than the 15 days stated in the l/c for presentation.
Based on art. 31 b), last sentence of the first paragraph and its dispositions for the determination of the date of shipment when more than one set of transport documents are presented, we considered the date of shipment shown in the CMR for the last shipment as the date of shipment. This date was within the period for presentation, so, in our view, art 14 c) had been respected and there was no late presentation.
Some colleagues seem to have a different interpretation, arguing that such a practice could jeopardize the period for presentation of documents.
In your opinion, was our decision for a complying presentation the correct one?
Thank you for sharing your views.

The answer is in Article 31 b. (second paragraph) beginning: A presentation consisting of... These are different trucks i.e. the conveyance differs while the mode of transport is the same so a partial shipment has occurred. Also, in this case, based on the description provided, there is only one invoice/presentation with many CMR's a few dated after the latest allowable presentation period, it is a late presentation.

Glen,
I do not see how it can be late presentation as long as it is within the stipulated time frame of 15 days from shipment date determined in accordance with the provisions of art 31 b i.e the latest shipment date on any of the documents. Regards Khalid

Glenn is right. There are 6 partial shipments with 3 discrepant CMRs.
According to opinion TA581, there is only one complete presentation (one invoice), so the whole thing is discrepant.
Regards
Daniel

First, thank you for your participation. We had the oportunity of approaching this question with Mr. Xavier Fornt from ICC Spain who thinks that art 31 b) simply does not apply in this particular case because there are different means of conveyance (six different trucks) and therefore, even if the place of taking in charge and the place of final destination are the same, we can’t consider that it is the same journey. Documents evidence several shipments, not a shipment commencing on the same means of conveyance (same trucks) and for the same journey, a pre requisite of 31 b).
In other words, it was the same route, not the same journey.
The date of shipment would then have to be determined in accordance with art 24 a. ii. and three CMR would not comply with the 15 days period for presentation after shipment.
We would be grateful for your comments on this new perspective.
Thanks a lot.

Glen/Daniel
Thanks for the clarification on reflection I agree that the documents are discrepant as article 31 B is not applicable.
Regards
Khalid