ICC Digital Library Forum

Should a certificate issued by and signed
by a shipping company agent regarding
vessels age, classification etc. show the
name of the carrier or master on whose
behalf it has been signed. Also if this
is the case must the name of the agent
carrier or master be the same as shown
on the bill of lading.

My personal views, expressed without any responsibility are:

ASSUMING the credit has stipulated that a certificate issued by the carrier/master regarding the vessel’s age, classification etc must be presented, I believe:

1. The certificate must be signed by the agent as agent for the party on whose behalf the agent is acting and name that party, i.e. the certificate must be signed by the agent as agent for the named carrier/master, even if the b/l is signed by the agent as agent for that carrier/master. Otherwise, how can one be certain it has been given with the authority of, and is binding on, the carrier/master?

2. The carrier/master on whose behalf the agent is signing must be that carrier/master on whose behalf the b/l has been issued. Otherwise, it has not been issued by/for and on behalf the carrier/master concerned.

[edited 9/18/01 12:25:49 PM]

We note that Jeremy, in his assumptions, has narrowed down the scope of the query to restrict it to the situation where the DC requires the certificate be issued by the carrier/master. We wish to deal with this query on a wider scope.

We also disagree wtih Jeremy that the certificate must be issued by the SAME agent that has issued the B/L, from a "LATERAL THINKING" (thereby taking a wider scope) point of view.

In fact, for a transport or transport- related document such as the certificate we are talking about here, the transport perspective should be considered. A certificate about the age of a vessel issued by the Lloyd's Register of Shipping is more convincing than that from the carrier or master, because it has no conflict of interest, since it is from an independent authority. Other such authorities are classification societies like Le Bureau Veritas (France), Germanischer Lloyd (Germany), Registro Italiano (Italy), Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (Japan), Det Norske Veritas (Norway) and American Bureau of Shipping (USA).

UCP 500 ARTICLE 21 AND SBPED

Such certificate to certify the age of the carrying vessel and other particulars is however at present still subject to Article 21 of the UCP 500. Having said that, in the new ICC SBPED (Standard Banking Practice for Examination of Documents) still under the drafting stage, it is proposed (however, at this moment not yet approved) that a certificate should bear a signature and a date.

It does not require that the certificae must be issued and/or signed by the same agent that issues the B/L

ISSUING DATE IS MORE FOR ADMINISTRATION PURPOSE.

In our opinion, if the data content of a certificate has shown the date a certain task/event/information is based upon (e.g. the carrying vessel is under 15 years old as of 01/01/2001), then such certificate should be acceptable, even if there is no issuing date therein.

A PRINCIPAL HAS THE RIGHT TO USE TWO AGENTS

Also, if the B/L is issued by an agent of the master and the certificate is issued by another separate agent of the carrier. This should be acceptable. Why? In fact, under the law, a principal may have the right to use two separate agents to do two separate things, although we do agree that for the peace of mind of the document examiner, the B/L and the certificate issued by the same agent would be welcome.

HOW THE UCP 500 DEALS WITH DC AND AMENDMENTS TO AVOID TROUBLES

That is the reason why Article 11 (b) of UCP 500 stipulates that the amendments must be advised by the same bank that has advised the DC to void disputes. Otherwise, the issuing bank may have the right to use two separate advising banks for advsing the DC and the amendments.

But there is no such stipulation in the transport Articles in the UCP 500, such as Article 23.

LATERAL THINKING GIVES US DIFFERENT ANSWERS

We form such opinions by using "Lateral Thinking" pioneered by the Master Edward de Bono. We do not take the "right or wrong" and "black or white" Newtonian approaches which would become outdated in this atomic age where e-commerce is going to dominate soon. All DC practitioners should get themselves ready for this new challenge.

http://www.tolee.com

[edited 9/18/01 6:48:40 PM]

T.O.,

I am afraid there seems to have been a misunderstanding. I said:

‘The CARRIER/MASTER on whose behalf the agent is signing must be THAT CARRIER/MASTER ON WHOSE BEHALF THE B/L HAS BEEN ISSUED.’ [emphasis (liberally) added]

Therefore, I am not saying any agent that has signed the certificate must be the same as signs the b/l. Like apparently you, I believe the agents signing the b/l and certificate may be different, provided they are signing on behalf of the same carrier/agent.

Jeremy.

There is no requirement for the signatory to match that on the b/l since the cert is covered by Art 21. The doc, by itself, simply has to be issued as per l/c stipulation

As I am not quite sure to which posting this comment relates, I confirm -for the avoidance of doubt- that, in relation to my earlier assumption:

1. I am neither intending to suggest that the signatures have to be the same on both the b/l and the certificate, nor that the agents have to be the same on both documents.

2. What I am suggesting is that both documents have to be issued on behalf of one and the same named carrier/master.

Of course, I recognise my earlier assumption may not apply to the credit in question.

What Jeremy is suggesting is that if the document is signed by an agent then this agent should indicate his name and his capacity ; on whose behalf this agent is acting. While I do agree with this for the “peace of mind” there is nothing to support my agreement in the UCP if this is not stipulated in the credit. This issue is more of a legal matter than it is within the scope of UCP.

The possibility of having different agents signing the B/L and the vessel age certificate is a valid one.

[edited 9/19/01 1:28:06 PM]

Who should sign the certificate if the LC requirement were "a vessel age certificate APPENDED to the bill of lading"? Should the same agent that signed the bill of lading sign it?

ONE DC INSTRUCTION WITH TWO INTERPRETATIONS

Dear AbdulKader, the answer to your query depends on the interpretation of the word 'APPENDED".

If it means "to add in writing or in print OR to add at the end" according to our Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, then this DC instruction is not clear and precise enough, because we have two different interpretations to choose from and either one is correct. The DC does not specifiy which of these two interpretations represents the intention of the applicant.

In that case signature or issuance of the certificate by a different person should be OK.

INSTRUCTIONS IN DC MUST BE CLEAR AND PRECISE

Otherwise the DC should have stated clealry and precisely that the certificate must be issued/signed by the same person that issues/signs the B/L. "Person" here takes the interpretation of "legal person" as used in the ISP 98.

AbdulKader, see you in Jeddah workshop and hope by the time I arrive the war in Afghanistan is over!

http://www.tolee.com

[edited 9/20/01 4:24:49 PM]