I would like to know what is your opinion regarding an airwaybill presented under a LC ,showing in box "nature of goods " only p.o. number , price terms and quantity without indicating any goods description. is it a discrepant doc?
(invoice shows full description as per art. 45a)
airway bill description of goods
airway bill description of goods
Hi;
My answer is NO.
The first paragraph of the conclusion part of Official Opinion TA681rev is quoted below:
"The UCP does not require a goods description to appear on any document other than the invoice (sub-article 14 (e) refers). However, it is transport industry practice that a form of description will appear, and that description should not conflict with the description in the credit."
Regards.
Zeynep ERSAMUT
My answer is NO.
The first paragraph of the conclusion part of Official Opinion TA681rev is quoted below:
"The UCP does not require a goods description to appear on any document other than the invoice (sub-article 14 (e) refers). However, it is transport industry practice that a form of description will appear, and that description should not conflict with the description in the credit."
Regards.
Zeynep ERSAMUT
airway bill description of goods
The first paragraph of the conclusion part of Official Opinion TA681rev is absolute rubbish and reflects very badly on the ‘Banking’ Commission.
In the case of ‘air transport documents’ sub-Art 23(a) states that:
“An air transport document … must appear to:
……
ii indicate that the goods have been accepted for carriage”.
I fail to see how an ATD can possibly appear to indicate that the goods covered by the credit have been accepted for carriage if the goods are not described in any manner at all.
Thus, for me, the question is “Does p.o. number , price terms and quantity (assuming these details are quoted in the credit) constitute a description of the goods, not conflicting with that in the credit, sufficient for the purpose of 22(a)(ii)?”. I incline to the view that the answer is ‘yes’.
In the case of ‘air transport documents’ sub-Art 23(a) states that:
“An air transport document … must appear to:
……
ii indicate that the goods have been accepted for carriage”.
I fail to see how an ATD can possibly appear to indicate that the goods covered by the credit have been accepted for carriage if the goods are not described in any manner at all.
Thus, for me, the question is “Does p.o. number , price terms and quantity (assuming these details are quoted in the credit) constitute a description of the goods, not conflicting with that in the credit, sufficient for the purpose of 22(a)(ii)?”. I incline to the view that the answer is ‘yes’.
-
GlennRansier_olsABN
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:18 pm
airway bill description of goods
I submitted TA681 and was surprised by the ICC response. As noted therein, the local committee found it a discrepancy. My thinking coincided with Jemery's since UCP appears clear to me: "indicate that the "goods" have been loaded on board...". Live and learn. Based on that opinion and presuming that the PO number is stated in the LC and matches the number on the AWB, I would accept the presentation.
airway bill description of goods
Jeremy,
You "fail to see how an ATD..."
You should ask the carrier. Most LTAs state:"It is agreed that the goods DESCRIBED HEREIN are accepted...". If with such a wording the carrier does not indicate a description of the goods, there is something wrong and I wonder why a banker should raise a discrepancy.
Regards
Daniel
You "fail to see how an ATD..."
You should ask the carrier. Most LTAs state:"It is agreed that the goods DESCRIBED HEREIN are accepted...". If with such a wording the carrier does not indicate a description of the goods, there is something wrong and I wonder why a banker should raise a discrepancy.
Regards
Daniel
airway bill description of goods
Sorry Daniel but I do not understand the point you are making. Regards, Jeremy
airway bill description of goods
Sometimes the ICC's opinion seems to defy common sense ...
airway bill description of goods
Jeremy,
No point to be made actually.
Just that it is strange that a carrier does not describe the goods whereas his LTA form requires him to do so.
Rgds
Daniel
No point to be made actually.
Just that it is strange that a carrier does not describe the goods whereas his LTA form requires him to do so.
Rgds
Daniel