a letter of credit, under field 46A, asks for:
"full set B/Ls ............ signed by the shipping company or its agent"
and additionally states under field 47A that
"charter party B/Ls are acceptable"
Beneficiary presented a CP B/L signed by the Master.
Would you consider the signing of the B/L by the Master as a discrepancy?
Regards
Carmel
issuer of B/L
-
CarmelBorg
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:13 pm
-
HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
issuer of B/L
Hi,
There is no discrepancy. Where a CPBL is presented, it is to be signed in the form described in UCP 600 sub-article 22 (a) (i), i.e., it can be signed by:
.
(i) the master or a named agent for or on behalf of the master; or
(ii) the owner or a named agent for or on behalf of the owner; or
(iii) the charterer or a named agent for or on behalf of the charterer.
.
Kind regards,
N.H.Duc
[edited 11/27/2014 1:17:57 PM]
There is no discrepancy. Where a CPBL is presented, it is to be signed in the form described in UCP 600 sub-article 22 (a) (i), i.e., it can be signed by:
.
(i) the master or a named agent for or on behalf of the master; or
(ii) the owner or a named agent for or on behalf of the owner; or
(iii) the charterer or a named agent for or on behalf of the charterer.
.
Kind regards,
N.H.Duc
[edited 11/27/2014 1:17:57 PM]
-
CarmelBorg
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:13 pm
issuer of B/L
It has been argued that the specific condition in the credit for the B/Ls to be issued by the shipping company or its agent overrides the UCP and therefore in this case the CPBLs are discrepant.
A counter argument is that this condition is a repetition, rather than an excludion, of UCP.
Art. 1 states that the rules are
binding on all parties thereto unless expressly modified or excluded by the credit.
Another argument is that the definition of "shipping company" according to ISBP A19F would include the master. However A19F does not refer to B/Ls.
A similar event was discussed in 2011 but was inconclusive.
Would like to hear more views.
Best regards
Carmel
A counter argument is that this condition is a repetition, rather than an excludion, of UCP.
Art. 1 states that the rules are
binding on all parties thereto unless expressly modified or excluded by the credit.
Another argument is that the definition of "shipping company" according to ISBP A19F would include the master. However A19F does not refer to B/Ls.
A similar event was discussed in 2011 but was inconclusive.
Would like to hear more views.
Best regards
Carmel
issuer of B/L
It's not a discrepancy.
LC calls for "full set B/Ls ............ signed by the shipping company or its agent" thru 46A. The requirement "charter party B/Ls are acceptable" in 47A is "in lieu" of the requirement in 46A. However, when a CP B/L is presented, it must be checked with accordance to Article 22, UCP 600. In this case, CP B/L is presented and Master has signed it which in line with Article 22, UCP 600.
LC calls for "full set B/Ls ............ signed by the shipping company or its agent" thru 46A. The requirement "charter party B/Ls are acceptable" in 47A is "in lieu" of the requirement in 46A. However, when a CP B/L is presented, it must be checked with accordance to Article 22, UCP 600. In this case, CP B/L is presented and Master has signed it which in line with Article 22, UCP 600.