Shiped on board date and Receive for shipment B/L

[MarkColeman]

We have an export letter of credit that asks for the standard “Full set clean shipped on board Bill Of Lading ……….” A standard Bill of Lading, signed by the carries agent has been presented with the words SHIPPED ON BOARD printed and the date has been hand written in with no stamp. I have two questions.

1. It has been rejected because the hand written ‘shipped on board’ date has not been signed and stamped. Does the shipped on board date (which has been hand written) have to be stamp / Authenticated? I believe ICC opinion R341 covers this and it does not need to be stamped or signed next to the hand written shipped on board date.

2. They also claim this is a “RECEIVE FOR SHIPMENT” B/L because in the fine print on the front of the B/L it states “Accepted by the Carrier in apparent good order and condition……..”. I have had a looked at many shipping line B/L’s and most have a similar statement like above or “Received in external apparent good order…” (Cosco), “Received by the Carrier from the shipper in apparent good order…” (Hyundai, MISC, ANL & CGM), “Received in apparent good order…” (PIL & Contship). I believe all these statements cover the shipping line from an insurance perspective.

What does everyone think, is it a received for shipment B/L and does the date also need to be stamped.

Mark from Melbourne

[Yahya]

Mark,

I would think that it is difficult for a bank to justify a refusal on the grounds that you have mentioned.

1 - An board notation should not be considered to be an alteration or addition to B/L so,this does not need to be authenticated, even if it is hand written. (except this notation itself has an amendment)
2- I think that you have a 'received B/L' because of the wording -Accepted by the carrier.........
but it doesn't matter because it has already an on board notation and date (which is handwriting)
so it is compliant under Art 23 of UCP for the purposes which you have mentioned.

Yahya K.