Intended vessel

[LubomirMelko]

Hi all.
We have a discussion in our department concerning topic 'intended vessel'.
L/C requires bill of lading for combined transport. As per Art. 19 iii b. indication about intended vessel is not a discrepancy.
But what about Art. D7 of ISBP 745 which says: 'When a credit requires shipment to commence from a port, i.e., when the first leg of the journey, as required by the credit, is by sea, a multimodal transport document is to indicate a dated on board notation.'
In such case is an indication about intended vessel a discrepancy?
For myself not. But somebody in our department has another meaning and says that there may be some analogy with request to on board notation in case first leg of the journey is by sea and therefore in case of indication 'intended vessel' the B/L for combined transport should also evidence the name of actual vessel on which the goods have been loaded.
What is your meaning?

[AndyHunt]

If the start point indicated in the credit is an inland point of taking in charge or receipt of the goods, then it is fair to say that all that follows from that point onwards is ‘intended’ given that loading on board a vessel at a port will take place at a time after the carrier has assumed control of the goods at the inland point; hence why UCP600 sub-article 19a iii b is worded in this manner.

If however the start point is an ocean port, then, in my opinion there is little difference between a multimodal transport document and a bill of lading (save for the delivery aspects) and I would expect both to bear an on board notation relating to the vessel stated on the transport document. Therefore in both cases I would expect any indication thereon that the vessel was ‘intended’ to be supported by an on-board notation in the manner stated in UCP600 sub-article 20a ii.

Andy