ICC Digital Library Forum

we know that presenting more than one b/l consisting same vessel and same voyage and place of destination are not considered as partial shipment,but what
if the delivery term rquired was fob(x port),and one b/l was presented complying to that port,while another b/l
was presented showing port of loading was port y ,what will be the case then?
its not a partial shipment,but ports of loading were not complied with,do any one have other opinion?

Looks discrepant to me. If l/c calls for FOB (X) a b/l showing loadport as (Y) will be inconsistent. I think that your question covers an unlikely scenario.

Certainly if the L/C calls for shipment from port X & the B/L shows port Y, this is discrepant. In turn this forces the presentation to also be discrepant regarding part shipment, as documents presented for that part from port Y will not be taken into account due to the discrepancy.
Is it possible that the consignment from port Y was transhipped at port X ? If so, it should be comparatively easy to replace the current B/L with a compliant B/L.

Laurence A. J. Bacon

what i meant here exactly was:how did ucp 500 allow loading from more than 1 port and getting more than 1 b/l as not patial shipment and compying if it was same vessel and same destination, provided that the delivery term was fob(x),while goods were loaded at port(x),then port(y) with 2 b/l , i think ucp is contradicting here.

Not sure of the history but the l/c would have to allow e.g. shipment from UK port. If l/c states shipment from a particular place then that place must be stated as POD despite what you feel is implied by Art 40b.

To make Article 40 (b) tick, which is used to cover commodity shipments where loading may be from different ports, the applicant should state in the LC application form either more than one specific port(s) of loading or simply state a broader range of ports of loading, such as "European Ports" or "North American Ports", "China Ports" and the like.

We are from www.tolee.com