Air way bill : a number of originals ?

SOOEYOUNKIM · Post by **SOOEYOUNKIM** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:00 am

Hi guys,

We got a discrepancy msg from a issuing bank regarding the number of original air way bills.

1. L/C requires 2 original AWB for shipper.

However,
2. Actually, one original AWB for shippers was presented.

---

For the matter, it is common practice and a principle of the carrier that three (3) originals are
issued as original AWBs.
AWB for shipper
AWB for consignee
AWB for carrier
.
So, we ignored the credit requirement and send one (1) original AWB for shipper to a issuing bank.
.
.
Could this be a dicrepancy?

In my opinion. This can not be a discrepancy since it does not reflect the real practice of AWB issuance.
.
Hope your excellenct ideas.

GlennRansier_olsABN · Post by **GlennRansier_olsABN** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:00 am

I understand the approach you decided upon, however, there is nothing that I am aware of that presents a carrier from issuing more than the standard 3 original AWB's. LCs are allowed to request non standard industry practices such as having an applicant countersign a statement, etc. This may hinge on the exact LC wording.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:00 am

Does not par. 136 apply?
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:00 am

If I understand correctly the credit expressly required two original AWBs, as opposed to a ‘complete’ or ‘full set’. This being the case I believe the requirement for two originals has to be met, in order for a presentation to be complying, however seemingly difficult or pointless it is. This of course puts the onus is on the beneficiary to have the credit amended if they cannot meet its terms.

GlennRansier_olsABN · Post by **GlennRansier_olsABN** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:00 am

Paragraph 136 in ISBP or any paragraph contained therein is a default position which becomes active when a LC is silent.

SOOEYOUNKIM · Post by **SOOEYOUNKIM** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:00 am

Thank you guys for kind replies.

I quoted ISBP136 as a key point against a issuing bank's discrepancy notice.
AND, fortunately the issuing bank withdrew the discrepancy.

HAVE a nice day guys!

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:00 am

SOOEYOUNKIM

Sorry, but an AWB is not required to take possession of the shipment, any more than a postal receipt is required to receive a package. The goods will be delivered to the entity which is designated as consignee -- or eventually to the entity that the original consignee designates by a separate document (however called) since an AWB is not a document which is endorsable. This is why Para. 143 of ISBP says that it should not be required to be established "to order".
Best regards
Judith

SOOEYOUNKIM · Post by **SOOEYOUNKIM** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:00 am

to JudithAutié

Agreed..

I deleted previous comments.

Thank you for your good consultation