1)Credit issued via MT700
2)Required presentation of "Original Multimodal Transport Document to order blank endorsed, notify applicant and marked freight prepaid"
3) Field 44A: "Any China Port"
4) Field 44B: "Charleston, N.C. U.S.A.
.
Transport document presented indicates:
1) Place of Receipt: (Blank)
2) Port of Loading "Dalian"
3) Port of Discharge "Charleston"
4) Place of Delivery "Archdale NC. U.S.A.
.
The issuing bank gave notice of refusl due to:
"Multimodal Transport Documetn does not indicate place of receipt of goods"
.
After several back and forth communications, the issuing bank insist it was discrepant according to UCP Article 26-A iii and ISPB Par. 127.
.
What I understand is that such article (as well ss ISPB) places no obligation (Not mandatory if not required by credit) on the part of the Multimodal Transport Document to specify the place of receipt. On the basis that the credit required the presentation of a Multimodal Transport Document and such document complied with the provisions of Article 26 and the terms specified in the credit, bank is not required to seed confirmation where the goods were received. Further more, under Multimodal Transport, the first leg of transport could be by ship and via other mode of transportation to the place of delivery from the port of discharge (in this case), and in additional, port-to-port traffice may also be considered as multimodal transport.
.
Appreciate your comments.
Regards
Albert
ISPB Par. 127 - UCP 500 Article 27-A iii
ISPB Par. 127 - UCP 500 Article 27-A iii
Albert,
Personally and without any liability / responsibility I agree:
1. Para 127 is irrelevant. This is simply saying that where a credit specifies loading on board/dispatch/taking in charge at/from or transportation to, for example, ‘Any European port’ the transport document may not literally show ‘Any European port’ but must name the actual European port.
2. Assuming Dalian is a Chinese port and that only the words ‘Any China Port’ appeared in field 44a, the bill of lading does show ‘the place taking in charge’ in accordance with sub-Article 26aiiia and is therefore not discrepant for the reason given by the issuing bank.
Finally, I look forward to hearing your own views on the next subject I raise on DC-Pro (whenever that may be).
Personally and without any liability / responsibility I agree:
1. Para 127 is irrelevant. This is simply saying that where a credit specifies loading on board/dispatch/taking in charge at/from or transportation to, for example, ‘Any European port’ the transport document may not literally show ‘Any European port’ but must name the actual European port.
2. Assuming Dalian is a Chinese port and that only the words ‘Any China Port’ appeared in field 44a, the bill of lading does show ‘the place taking in charge’ in accordance with sub-Article 26aiiia and is therefore not discrepant for the reason given by the issuing bank.
Finally, I look forward to hearing your own views on the next subject I raise on DC-Pro (whenever that may be).
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
ISPB Par. 127 - UCP 500 Article 27-A iii
I agree with Jeremy. Article 26 (A iii a) states that the place of taking in charge MAY be different from the port of loading. In this case it is not and therefore there is no reason for completion of the box indicating place of receipt.
Laurence
[edited 11/5/2004 9:14:04 PM]
[edited 11/5/2004 9:16:04 PM]
Laurence
[edited 11/5/2004 9:14:04 PM]
[edited 11/5/2004 9:16:04 PM]
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
ISPB Par. 127 - UCP 500 Article 27-A iii
Dear Albert,
Agree with Jeremy and Laurence. This refusal is not valid. Provided of course that the bill of lading indicates that the goods have dispatched, taken in charge or loaded on board (art 26a,ii). Would assume that the document elsewhere states that goods are “Loaded on board …” or “Taken in charge…” or similar (??).
One could discuss however if this document is in fact a multimodal transport document in the terms of UCP 500 article 26a and ISBP paragraph 120:
Looking alone at the places stipulated in the credit (Chinese port and Charleston), the transport has been conducted from one PORT to another PORT, utilizing only one mode of transport.
Best regards
Kim
Agree with Jeremy and Laurence. This refusal is not valid. Provided of course that the bill of lading indicates that the goods have dispatched, taken in charge or loaded on board (art 26a,ii). Would assume that the document elsewhere states that goods are “Loaded on board …” or “Taken in charge…” or similar (??).
One could discuss however if this document is in fact a multimodal transport document in the terms of UCP 500 article 26a and ISBP paragraph 120:
Looking alone at the places stipulated in the credit (Chinese port and Charleston), the transport has been conducted from one PORT to another PORT, utilizing only one mode of transport.
Best regards
Kim