ICC Digital Library Forum

The following is not hypothetical:

L/C calls for shipment from Indonesian Port to UK port and calls for usual cob marine b/l's. Transhipment is allowed but, in any event, shipment is in containers and b/l's are pre-printed 'received for shipment'

B/L no. 1
---------

POR:
Surabaya, Indonesia CY
pre-carriage by:
Asian Gyro
Vessel:
Pusan Senator
POL:
Surabaya, Indonesia
POD:
Felixstowe

On board notation states: laden on board the vessel Asian Gyro 20th June

In my view this b/l is acceptable per para 80 of ISBP.

B/L no. 2
---------

POR:
Surabaya, Indonesia CY
pre-carriage by:
Luo Sheng
Vessel:
Hanjin Madrid
POL:
Surabaya, Indonesia
POD:
Felixstowe

On board notation states: laden on board The Vessel 20th June

Again I would accept this b/l on the basis of ISBP para 82 (reflecting Art 23aii).

In both cases there is evidence that shipment has been effected from Surabaya on a vessel with, depending, on how you look at it, transhipment within Surabaya port (there is no restriction as to how long or short the 1st leg of transhipment should be).

However, a spanner in the works is the ICC opinion no R350 (given prior to ISBP) which stated that, in the above instances, the reference to 'named vessel' in Art 23aii relates to the vessel which leaves the port of loading i.e. on board pre-carriage vessel at place of receipt is not allowed. Unless I am misconstruing it Para 80 of ISBP appears to have superceded that opinion.

If anyone's still reading this post (!)I'd be interested in any affirmative or conflicting thoughts

Phil Gauntlett

Well, here I am in a world of my own answering my own post!

After a lengthy and interesting telephone discussion with Jeremy Smith I have decided to revise my opinion on the basis that, although it is possible to argue that these b/l’s are ok, it is better to adopt a safety-first approach and reject such b/l’s in the future. According to R350 I can’t, in these instances, apply para 82 of ISBP nor, it seems, can I apply para 80 because, whilst para 80 allows the port of loading to be shown in the POR box, it requires the on-board notation to include names of vessel and loadport so, for b/l no.1 above the notation should read ‘loaded on board Asian Gyro at Surabaya on 20th June’.

Having spent (wasted?) a lot of time this weekend reading and re-reading the ICC opinions there certainly appears to have been muddled thinking on their part on this issue and I have the following final thoughts/questions:

-para 80 must allow shipment on a feeder (pre-carriage) vessel at the place of receipt (if that is the port named in the l/c)

-Notwithstanding my shift in position as stated above I am not wholly convinced that the wording of para 80 unambiguously calls for the port to be included in the on-board notation (i.e. the language is not as strong as that used in Art 23). Anyone got any thoughts on this?

-If R350 is still valid why wasn’t reference made to it in para 82 as it seems quite an important issue i.e. this para should have gone on to state that if pre-carriage vessel stated then por/pol are deemed to be different places?

-Can R350 be considered as definitive if part of the conclusion was wrong (i.e. the statement that ‘named vessel must relate to the vessel which leaves the port of loading and not any vessel (feeder) which may appear in the pre-carriage box’) thereby possibly weakening its ability to be used as an official view of the ICC?

Phil Gauntlett

Phil,

Sounds as if you had a pretty interesting weekend (not). Just so as you’re not left a ‘lonesome pine’ my personal views, without liability/responsibility, are:

A. Para 82 does not actually mention ‘pre-carriage’. In line with R282, as clarified by R350, para 82 is to be read in the context of the ‘pre-carriage’ box being EMPTY. This is the reason why neither the vessel name nor POL need be mentioned in the on-board notation (‘OBN’). Consequently, para 82 cannot have any application to your two examples, as they both involve ‘pre-carriage’. I agree this may not be obvious from an initial reading of para 82, but that’s the ‘Banking Commission’ for you.

B. In order to meet the requirement of para 80, the b/l must:
I. Show ‘clear[ly] the goods that the goods were transported from that place of receipt by vessel’ AND
II. Have an ‘on board notation evidencing [i.e. the OBN ALONE must do the evidencing] that the goods were loaded’:
a. ‘On that vessel’,
b. ‘At the port stated under “Place of receipt”’.

Clearly, your example b/ls fail to meet (II)(b) above.

Also, I think it would be dangerous to assume para 80 covers ‘pre-carriage’ situations. I would stress I am not saying it does not; I would merely observe no reference is made to pre-carriage.

C. As to R350 being ‘wrong’, I am sure you could get someone from the ‘Banking Commission’ to explain how , for example, R458 and R459 are not inconsistent with R350.

Regards, Jeremy

[edited 7/7/03 11:26:14 AM]