Daegu Vs Busan

michaeltan · Post by **michaeltan** » Mon Jun 25, 2001 1:00 am

Credit required an on-board ocean BL evidencing shipment fr Daegu to Port Klang.

In the preprinted box the port of loading is given to be Busan Korea. In the centre of the BL just beneath the description of goods
the following is shown:-

-loading in charge: Daegu

-specific port of loading: Busan

Is the BL discrepant?

Thank you.

PGauntlett · Post by **PGauntlett** » Mon Jun 25, 2001 1:00 am

In my opinion b/l is discrepant since, in this instance, 'Daegu' should be shown in the POL box

'loading in charge' is a meaningless expression.

T.O.Lee · Post by **T.O.Lee** » Mon Jun 25, 2001 1:00 am

"LOADING IN CHARGE" IS NOT A RECOGNISED TERM

We do not find the term "loadng in charge" in the Lloyd's publications, such as "Marine Encyclopaedic Dictionary" or "Dictionary of Shipping Terms" in our private consultancy library.

"Loading in charge" may mean that the loading starts from Daegu and the actual "loading on board" the carrying vessel is in Busan, particularly when the BL states "Specific Port of Loading: Busan".

"LOADING IN CHARGE" IS A DISCREPANCY

Since the description on port of loading is unclear, the document checker may raise doubts and it should be deemed as a discrepancy, according to Article 23 of the UCP 500 that needs a BL to indicate clearly that the port of loading must be same as that stated in the LC.

We are from www.tolee.com

[edited 7/2/01 9:46:52 PM]

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Sun Jul 01, 2001 1:00 am

I agree with messrs Gauntlett & Lee's comments on discrepancy.

A possible explanation of the "loading in charge" is a poor abbreviation of the commonly used "loading/taking in charge".