I refer to the Queries and Responses of the DCI issue Vol 4 No. 1 page 13, where in point 2 of the conclusion, it is mentioned that :
" the shipped on board date could be later or earlier than the date of issue of the received for shipment document".
In the pre-printed wording of this kind of shipment document, the issuer expressly recognizes that he "RECEIVED THE GOODS ..... FOR TRANSPORTATION ..." which logically means that the goods were received on the date of issue of the document for further shipment.
I wonder, then, how could the goods be shipped/laden on board before they are received ?
I would like to have your comments.
Thanks
Antoine Samaha - Beirut - Lebanon
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
The issue date of a B/L can vary considerably in relation to the "taking in charge date" and date of shipment. Some carriers may indicate an issue date when the document is first printed, which may be based on booking information and is sent to the shipper for approval. At the other extreme, some carriers wait for confirmation of sailing (i.e. one or more days after sailing date) before issuing B/L and make this date the issue date.
Laurence
Laurence
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
OTHER TRADE PRACTICES ARE ALSO IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE DISCREPANCIES WITH CONFIDENCE AND PROFESSIONALISM
We share the same opinions with Laurence. This query is a good example to illustrate that bankers have to know the trade practices of the maritime world, whether they like it or not, in order to be able to determine the discrepancies in a BL with more confidence and professionalism.
SEAFARERS ARE MORE ADVENTUROUS THAN LOGICAL
The issuing date of a BL does not necessarily reflect the logical procedures as assumed by the enquirer, Asamaha, as seafarers, by tradition, are people who are adventurous and do not care about too much the theories. Otherwise as logical people, inclined to be a bit conservative, they would not join this profession with a lot of perils at the sea where they could lose their lives any moment. They would end up as accountants instead.
In one of the DC dispute cases, we have seen a Maersk BL being used whilst the carrying vessel was a P&O (before merging with Nedlloyd) cargo ship but this was not a consortium carriage. This does not sound logical. Can Asamaha and Laurence guess the reasons why?
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/17/02 3:15:14 PM]
We share the same opinions with Laurence. This query is a good example to illustrate that bankers have to know the trade practices of the maritime world, whether they like it or not, in order to be able to determine the discrepancies in a BL with more confidence and professionalism.
SEAFARERS ARE MORE ADVENTUROUS THAN LOGICAL
The issuing date of a BL does not necessarily reflect the logical procedures as assumed by the enquirer, Asamaha, as seafarers, by tradition, are people who are adventurous and do not care about too much the theories. Otherwise as logical people, inclined to be a bit conservative, they would not join this profession with a lot of perils at the sea where they could lose their lives any moment. They would end up as accountants instead.
In one of the DC dispute cases, we have seen a Maersk BL being used whilst the carrying vessel was a P&O (before merging with Nedlloyd) cargo ship but this was not a consortium carriage. This does not sound logical. Can Asamaha and Laurence guess the reasons why?
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/17/02 3:15:14 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
In response to T.O. question, I presume it was issued by a Maersk freight forwarding subsidiary as agent to P&O.
Laurence
Laurence
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
Laurence,
Since you know about transport and some agency laws as well, do you think that an agent is allowed or authorized to commit his Principal to other terms and conditions of carriage different from his Principal's? We assume that P&O would not dare to use Maersk's terms and conditions of carriage for a carriage performed by P&O itself.
When an agent of P&O signs the BL for his Principal, he should have used P&O BL that contains the P&O terms and conditions of carriage and not that of Maersk Line.
However, we do see this done in the marketplace. As we have said, anything may happen these days. And as you have said, that is why we consultants do not need to change our profession.
Please clarify this before we uncover our answer.
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/18/02 5:03:49 PM]
Since you know about transport and some agency laws as well, do you think that an agent is allowed or authorized to commit his Principal to other terms and conditions of carriage different from his Principal's? We assume that P&O would not dare to use Maersk's terms and conditions of carriage for a carriage performed by P&O itself.
When an agent of P&O signs the BL for his Principal, he should have used P&O BL that contains the P&O terms and conditions of carriage and not that of Maersk Line.
However, we do see this done in the marketplace. As we have said, anything may happen these days. And as you have said, that is why we consultants do not need to change our profession.
Please clarify this before we uncover our answer.
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/18/02 5:03:49 PM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
T. O.,
there are several posibilities here -
1. The B/L may have been issued in error.
2. There may have been transhipment involved where Maersk was the first carrier & P&O the second.
3. The carriers' terms & conditions may have been identical and referred to a standard set of conditions applicable, for example, to a recognised body (association) in that country.
4. It may have been a multimodal B/L where Maersk controlled the first part & P&O the second.
5. The P&O vessel may have been chartered or part chartered by Maersk.
This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but indicative of the fact of the number of possibilities to explain this.
Laurence
there are several posibilities here -
1. The B/L may have been issued in error.
2. There may have been transhipment involved where Maersk was the first carrier & P&O the second.
3. The carriers' terms & conditions may have been identical and referred to a standard set of conditions applicable, for example, to a recognised body (association) in that country.
4. It may have been a multimodal B/L where Maersk controlled the first part & P&O the second.
5. The P&O vessel may have been chartered or part chartered by Maersk.
This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but indicative of the fact of the number of possibilities to explain this.
Laurence
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
I thank you for your comments on the subject.
However, why you think that an insurance document issued after shipment date must state that cover is effective at the latest from the date of loading (art 34e)whilst the received for shipment B/L issued after shipment date does not need to bear a similar clause like " the contract of carriage is effective as from the date of loading on board the vessel".
Can you tell me please if a received for shipment B/L with an on board notation dated 15 or 20 days prior to its issuance date can still be considered covered by the trade practice?
Thank you in advance for your valuable comments.
Regards - Antoine Samaha
However, why you think that an insurance document issued after shipment date must state that cover is effective at the latest from the date of loading (art 34e)whilst the received for shipment B/L issued after shipment date does not need to bear a similar clause like " the contract of carriage is effective as from the date of loading on board the vessel".
Can you tell me please if a received for shipment B/L with an on board notation dated 15 or 20 days prior to its issuance date can still be considered covered by the trade practice?
Thank you in advance for your valuable comments.
Regards - Antoine Samaha
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
Laurence,
THANKS FOR YOUR ANSWERS
From your last response to our queries, you sure know your stuff about maritime and multimodal transport, as well as shipping practice. We are glad that we can find a counterpart with whom we can go in depth on these issues.
Yes, all the possibilities named by you are valid. You seem to work harder after being pushed by us. Your second answer is much better than the first one, really giving the matter deeper thoughts.
OUR SURPRISE ANSWER FOUND FROM THE KITCHEN
To tell you the truth, your first guess in your second response is right. The young lady who issued the BL in a DC dispute told us that in normal practice she would issue a P&0 BL against the carriage by a P& 0 cargo ship. However, on one fine morning, when she went to pick up a P&0 BL, she was told that it was out of stock.
The shippers were waiting for the BsL to cash their DCs. So she could not wait for the BsL from P& 0. As most of the people in Hong Kong are well known for flexibility. She is not an exception. She also realised that all the BsL look more or less the same, both on the face and back sides, such as the Definitions, Carrier's Liabilities, Shipper's Responsibilities, Inspections, Freight, Lien, Clause Paramount, General Average & Savage Clause, Law and Jurisdiction, Limitation of Liabilities Clause, so on and so forth. So she said to herself: "Since they are more or less the same, then why not I use the Maersk Line BL instead just for this special occasion so that the shippers would not chase after me?"
Her manager could never find out this as he had to "sign" (sometimes by hand and most of the time by stamp) 3,000 BsL in one shipment alone and there is no time to check on the details of each and every BL. He has to trust his subordinates.
However, the young lady was not aware that there should be a lot of differences, such as the Jurisdiction Clause, which should be different as P&O is UK while Maersk is Scandinavian.
Sine then, the manger requested us to design a basic workshop for his subordinates to avoid such unpleasant surprises.
As we have said: "Anything may happen these days".
And the only way to find out the truth or the facts is to go to the kitchen. This holds true for a consultant as well as a banker. We know one bank in Middle East that requires the staff members to visit at least three customers in a week and make a brief report to the manager. In this way they know more what the customers are actually doing. This helps to determine discrepancies better. Jeremy, what do you think?
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/19/02 5:05:44 PM]
THANKS FOR YOUR ANSWERS
From your last response to our queries, you sure know your stuff about maritime and multimodal transport, as well as shipping practice. We are glad that we can find a counterpart with whom we can go in depth on these issues.
Yes, all the possibilities named by you are valid. You seem to work harder after being pushed by us. Your second answer is much better than the first one, really giving the matter deeper thoughts.
OUR SURPRISE ANSWER FOUND FROM THE KITCHEN
To tell you the truth, your first guess in your second response is right. The young lady who issued the BL in a DC dispute told us that in normal practice she would issue a P&0 BL against the carriage by a P& 0 cargo ship. However, on one fine morning, when she went to pick up a P&0 BL, she was told that it was out of stock.
The shippers were waiting for the BsL to cash their DCs. So she could not wait for the BsL from P& 0. As most of the people in Hong Kong are well known for flexibility. She is not an exception. She also realised that all the BsL look more or less the same, both on the face and back sides, such as the Definitions, Carrier's Liabilities, Shipper's Responsibilities, Inspections, Freight, Lien, Clause Paramount, General Average & Savage Clause, Law and Jurisdiction, Limitation of Liabilities Clause, so on and so forth. So she said to herself: "Since they are more or less the same, then why not I use the Maersk Line BL instead just for this special occasion so that the shippers would not chase after me?"
Her manager could never find out this as he had to "sign" (sometimes by hand and most of the time by stamp) 3,000 BsL in one shipment alone and there is no time to check on the details of each and every BL. He has to trust his subordinates.
However, the young lady was not aware that there should be a lot of differences, such as the Jurisdiction Clause, which should be different as P&O is UK while Maersk is Scandinavian.
Sine then, the manger requested us to design a basic workshop for his subordinates to avoid such unpleasant surprises.
As we have said: "Anything may happen these days".
And the only way to find out the truth or the facts is to go to the kitchen. This holds true for a consultant as well as a banker. We know one bank in Middle East that requires the staff members to visit at least three customers in a week and make a brief report to the manager. In this way they know more what the customers are actually doing. This helps to determine discrepancies better. Jeremy, what do you think?
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/19/02 5:05:44 PM]
received for shipment B/L with on board notation dated prior
Samaha,
You seem to join the Discussion Forum midway. Please look at our past postings on cargo insurance that may provide the answer to your query.
In a nutshell, the effective date of an insurance policy is not based on it's issuing date, as some bankers thank it is. It is in fact based on the "Transits Clause" 8.1 in the "Duration" Section of an ICC (A) cargo insurance policy. Please get an ICC (A) policy and look at this clause. Then you understand that your query should not exist.
However, in the ISBP draft, the ICC Banking Commission requires the issuing date of a cargo policy not later than the date of loading on board. (However, it also says that "unless it appears from the insurance document that the cover is effective at the least from the date of loading on board"). This is a unilateral requirement made by the bankers to make their job of document examination easier. If they understand the implications of the Transit Clause named above, there should not be such need. Insurance polices have 100 years of history and they work out fine without this effective date on their face. The real thing that needs to be done is to get bankers trained on the basics of cargo insurance.
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/19/02 5:06:44 PM]
You seem to join the Discussion Forum midway. Please look at our past postings on cargo insurance that may provide the answer to your query.
In a nutshell, the effective date of an insurance policy is not based on it's issuing date, as some bankers thank it is. It is in fact based on the "Transits Clause" 8.1 in the "Duration" Section of an ICC (A) cargo insurance policy. Please get an ICC (A) policy and look at this clause. Then you understand that your query should not exist.
However, in the ISBP draft, the ICC Banking Commission requires the issuing date of a cargo policy not later than the date of loading on board. (However, it also says that "unless it appears from the insurance document that the cover is effective at the least from the date of loading on board"). This is a unilateral requirement made by the bankers to make their job of document examination easier. If they understand the implications of the Transit Clause named above, there should not be such need. Insurance polices have 100 years of history and they work out fine without this effective date on their face. The real thing that needs to be done is to get bankers trained on the basics of cargo insurance.
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/19/02 5:06:44 PM]