shipping co.'s b/l

[POLTERD.]

i kindly ask for help.
i do have an l/c stating under 46a "shipping company's full set, original ocean/marine b/l,issued to the order of bank xx,showing freight payable at destination".
the l/c doesn't states that art.23 of ucp500 is not applicable.i want to know if in such case you would accept a b/l signed by the master or you will consider that l/c ask for a b/l signed by the carrier.
i would highly appreciate some help.thank you very much.
bogdan.

[KimChristensen]

Dear Bogdan,

The best would no doubt be to turn to the issuing bank and ask for clarification!

In any case, the way that this is worded, I would not hesitate to examine the B/L according to article 23.
I do not think, that this could have any effect on the capacity on which the “shipping company” is to sign this – as per 23(a)(i).
(I mean: it must be article 23 since it mentions ocean/marine and it must be a shipping company since it is shipping the goods

Best regards
Kim

[POLTERD.]

thank you very much.i know,best is to ask issuing bank for clarification ,but sometimes issuing bank doesn't answer.
i owe you.
have a nice day.
bogdan.

[JudithAutié]

I have seen this on certain credits coming from Middle Eastern countries. When I asked what they wanted, in fact they were trying to avoid B/Ls issued by NVOCCs, and wanted to be sure that the document presented was issued by a liner and not a forwarder acting as a carrier.

I have also seen credits stipulating that the B/L cannot be signed "as carrier", for the same reasons.

Hope this is helpful

Judith

[KimChristensen]

Dear Judith,

You are of course right – but I still have not been able to find out how the poor document checker is to identify a “shipping line B/L” and a “NVOCC B/L”.

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

Re the credit requirement quoted, I would consider that a B/L that meets the terms of Article 23 (and thus Article 30) as meeting this requirement. In other words, I would not attribute any particular significance to the words ‘shipping company's’.

Clearly a document examiner cannot know if a B/L has been issued by a NVOCC. Issuing banks can exclude Article 30 but that offers no guarantees. The only solution I can see is to specify in the credit the actual name of the carrier or a range of carriers.

[POLTERD.]

thank you all for your opinions.
indeed,the issuing bank(IB) is from middle east.
once,some time ago,i asked an IB what does they mean by "shipping co.b/l".their answer:"b/l signed only by the carrier".but in 99% of cases IB either doesn't reply or give a foggy answer.problem is art.23 (and not only) states "..unless otherwise stipulated in the credit...".
i think that in the end "the poor document checker"(i love kim's words) must draw bnf's attn to deliver goods only after IB clarifies meaning of.anyway,in absence of IB reply,i think i would advice bnf to obtain a b/l signed by carrier.
don't you think that words "unless otherwise stipulated in the credit" must be deleted?

[KimChristensen]

Dear Bogdan

“..Unless otherwise stipulated in the credit” most likely will be deleted … but that will not make any difference whatsoever…

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

As Article 23, even when read in conjunction with Article 30, requires a b/l to appear to be signed by the ‘carrier’ or its agent I cannot see how a bank can possibly believe it is in anyway overriding any of the provisions of Article 23 or 30 by specifying a ‘carrier’s’ or ‘shipping company’s’ (or similar) bill of lading. (I do not see any grounds for drawing a distinction between a ‘carrier’ and a ‘shipping company’, at least in the world of banking.)

If one is not able to specify acceptable b/l issuers by name, alternatives to precluding NVOCC b/l’s would seem to me to be to include an express condition that (1) the b/l’s must appear to be signed by the ‘vessel owner’ or its agent or (2) that the b/l’s must contain a statement, or are accompanied by a certificate, that the carrier is the vessel owner.

[KimChristensen]

Dear Jeremy,

How does a B/L appear to be signed by “vessel owner” or their agent?

I am not sure that I agree with you conclusion regarding NVOCC … said with ICC opinion TA.572 in the back of my head. Following that line of argumentation would also include, that if a credit states that a “forwarders B/L is not acceptable” would require of the carrier to state that they are not a forwarder …
(I am not saying that I personally agree with this opinion, but somehow even I must accept that this is the official opinion by the Banking Commission

I think that all of this fuzz comes from the wording “however named”. This turns everything upside down – e.g. saying that if a multimodal transport document is required, bankers do not care whatsoever what is presented, as long as article 26 is complied with. In this case, there is even the “snag” that the conditions covering the REAL “FIATA Multimodal Transport Document” applies even if only ONE mode of transport is used. I.e. the opposite of article 26(a).
It may even be so that when requesting a “MMTD” the exporter expects a document subject to the “UNCTAD/ICC Rules for Multimodal Transport Documents”. We all know however, that it is not a given fact that they will get that

I can understand why the “however named” principle has been introduced: namely to simplify the document examination … I do sympathise with that, but do hope that in revising the UCP 500 transport articles, another (more earthbound) approach is consid-ered

Have a nice weekend.

Kim