Art. 20a UCP 600
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:00 am
Intended vessel-remark
Recently a B/L was presented showing in field vessel and voyage no. a vessel named ‘A’ with asterisk and in field port of loading 'C', country 'E' (field 44E of the L/C indicated any port in country 'E') with no asterisk.
The continuation of the field vessel and voyage no starting with the asterisk indicated the following remark: intention to load at 'D' (port in country 'F') on vessel ‘B’.
There was a preprinted shipped on board date on the B/L without indicating port and vessel.
In our opinion it is ambiguous what the issuer of the B/L wanted to express by this remark.
Either a real intended vessel remark (to be loaded either in 'C', country 'E' onto vessel ‘A’ or in 'D' (port in country 'F') onto vessel ‘B’) or should it be only an indication regarding an intended transhipment at port 'D'.
The issuing bank refused the documents due to the fact that there is an intended vessel remark and the on board notation did not include vesel's name.
An argument however for the second intention (transhipment) is that the port of loading did not show the asterisk with the a.m. remark.
What is your opinion?
Thank you for your comments.
Regards
Recently a B/L was presented showing in field vessel and voyage no. a vessel named ‘A’ with asterisk and in field port of loading 'C', country 'E' (field 44E of the L/C indicated any port in country 'E') with no asterisk.
The continuation of the field vessel and voyage no starting with the asterisk indicated the following remark: intention to load at 'D' (port in country 'F') on vessel ‘B’.
There was a preprinted shipped on board date on the B/L without indicating port and vessel.
In our opinion it is ambiguous what the issuer of the B/L wanted to express by this remark.
Either a real intended vessel remark (to be loaded either in 'C', country 'E' onto vessel ‘A’ or in 'D' (port in country 'F') onto vessel ‘B’) or should it be only an indication regarding an intended transhipment at port 'D'.
The issuing bank refused the documents due to the fact that there is an intended vessel remark and the on board notation did not include vesel's name.
An argument however for the second intention (transhipment) is that the port of loading did not show the asterisk with the a.m. remark.
What is your opinion?
Thank you for your comments.
Regards