discrepancy or not

[jsheehan]

We presented documents under 6 separate Ls/C. It was a commingled shipment all on the same vessel. Each BL mentioned the usual commingling clause "this shipment was loaded aboard the vessel as part of one original lot of 4000.153 kilos with no segregation..."
The discrepancy (for one LC and then for all) was that the total mentioned in the commingling clause was less than the BL quantity. The commingling clause obviously should have said 4000.153 mts (not kilos). Time prevented the correction of each BL. But what we presented was a statement issued/signed by the Master's agent (same agent who signed each BL) acknowledging that the commingling statement was incorrect and stating that the 4000.153 kilos on the BL was corrected to 4000.153 mts. The bank rejected the agent's statement saying the correction needed to be on the BL and not by separate document. I don't agree. I think the agents statement, especially signed in the same way as the Bs/L, is a clear correction and authentication of the correction. Would appreciate your comments. Thanks

[NigelHolt]

Bank employees that work in the field of documentary credits tend to take a very mechanical & rigid approach to examining documents, that –among other things- takes no account of the law. (And to be fair I do have some sympathy for this approach.) Thus, they will –in this type of case- invariably rigidly apply para A7(b)(i) of ISBP745. However, my opinion is that, in law, the document you describe is equally acceptable as a means of correcting data in a document and evidencing that correction PROVIDED the master’s agent expressly states they are acting for the master of the vessel (and I suspect, from what you say, they did not; the fact that the same entity is shown as the master’s agent on the BLs is, of itself, insufficient I believe).
[edited 2/26/2014 11:24:36 AM]

[jsheehan]

Thanks for your response.The letter is signed "signed on behalf of Master A. Bragais of M/T Songa Winds, S5 Agency World as Agents only". The BL is signed S5 Agency World as Agent for and on behalf of Master A Bragais of Songa Winds"

Would this change your opinion?

Thanks

[NigelHolt]

Based on what you quote above, the letter does seem to be signed clearly on behalf of the master of the vessel and thus I believe the letter is sufficient to correct data in the BL and to evidence that correction.

[jsheehan]

Thanks for your input

[HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid]

Hi,

According to ISBP paragraph E24, any correction of data on a bill of lading is to be authenticated. Such authentication is to appear to have been made by the carrier, master (captain) or any one of their named agents, who may be different from the agent that may have issued or signed a bill of lading, provided they are identified as an agent of the carrier or the master (captain).

It is agreed that the carrier, the master or any one of their agents had better make any necessary correction on the face of each original bills of lading. However, if it is impossible for some reason, the carrier, the master or any one of their agents may issue a separate document of correction to the shipper or to any interested party. Please note that this correction document (statement) should include the bill of lading numbers or state that this document is an attachment to Bills of Lading No.xxx; No. xxx; No. xxx… or words of similar effect.

Kind regards,
N.H. Duc

[edited 2/27/2014 11:18:35 PM]

[GlennRansier]

Hi John, the bank is quoting from ICC opinion - Official Opinion R351 - 1998/99 (take a look on this site). Whether or not folks agree with the opinion it is the current stance of the ICC and most banks will consider an additional document as a discrepancy due to the ICC opinions

[jsheehan]

Thanks Glenn I'll have a look

Best Regards John

[HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid]

Hi Glenn,

What do you think about my above answer?

What if the statement of corrections states that it is an attachment to BL No.. or it is an integral part of BL No... or words of similar effect?

In my opinion, my answer appears to comply with R351.

Kind regards,
N.H.Duc

[GlennRansier]

Hi N. H.
As noted in the opinion and as stated in UCP 600 Aticle 14 g. any presented document not required by the credit is to be disregarded. In your example, if a carrier (etc.) issued a statement to correct a BL term and said statement has XX originals i.e. (the number of original BLs as issued) and appears to be a part of or an attachment to the BL's then it would be acceptable.