ARTICLE 20

[JinHyangP]

DEAR ALL

I HOPE YOUR ADVICE

ARTICLE 23 IN UCP 500, IF THE BILL OF LADING INDICATES A PLACE OF RECEIPT OR TAKING IN CHARGE DIFFERENT FROM TH E PORT OF LOADING, THE ON BOARD NOTATION MUST ALSO INCLUDE THE PORT OF LOADING….

IS THIS RULE STILL VALID IN UCP 600 ? UCP 600 DOES NOT MENTION ABUOT THIS SITUATION.


BEST REGADRS

[AlbertB]

Dear All:

Any opinion?

I may have no choice but to accept an port to port B/L that indicates place of receipt different from the port of loading and the on board notation only showing date of on board as provided under article 20-a (ii).

I have already questioned by a freight forwarder above this issue.

Regards,
Albert

[LisaVC]

Not sure if this helps or not, but in "The Comparison of UCP600 & UCP500" by Professor James E. Byrne, it states:

"UCP600 Article 20 combines UCP500 Article 23(a)(ii) paragraph 4, regarding requirements for when a bill of lading indicates 'a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading" with UCP500 Article 23(a)(iii) and places them in UCP600 Article 20(a)(iii)."

This sounds to me like Professor Byrne believes that this requirement is implicit within the 600.

Lisa

[AlbertB]

Dear Lisa,

20-a (iii) requires on board notation to indicate port of loading (as stated in the credit), the date of shipment and the name of vessel ONLY in the event that 1) If the B/L does not indicate the port of loading stated in the credit as the port of loading; or 2) If contains the indication “intended” or similar qualification in relation to the port of loading.

The question on subject is not fall on the above exceptions, due to the fact that there is no article to define such circumstance and I can not assume (or treat) B/L indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading is an exception that require on board notation to indicate those requirement according to 20-a (iii).

Need more feedbacks!

Albert

[NigelHolt]

JHP, as you say UCP600 sub-Article 20(a)(ii) omits reference to where a 'bill of lading indicates a place for receipt or taking in charge different from the part of loading' (the last paragraph of UCP500 sub-Article 23(a)(ii)). The logical conclusion in my opinion is that this is simply not a matter with which document examiners need to concern themselves with under UCP600 and therefore provided such a bill of lading meets the express requirements of this sub-Article and UCP600 sub-Article 20(a)(iii) it is compliant. This view would appear to be supported by the deletion of paragraph 82 of ISBP645 from ISBP681 on the basis that the logical reason for this -in view of this change to UCP600- is that whether or not a container yard or container freight station (CFS) is the same as the stated port of loading is irrelevant.

[AsifMahmoodButt]

Hi
I assume UCP600 deliberatley omitted this clause under P to P BL because the correct document required would be a Combined TD under Art 19 and the LC should correctly reflect that. Art 20 would apply only for P to P shipments and the revised ISBP Art 98 mentions POL in the credit may also appear in the Place Of Receipt column of the BL, it does not mention it accepts a place(port) different from that mentioned in the LC.
Regards
Jason

[Yahya]

My opinion is that Sub-article 20(a)(ii) caters for this when it says "indicate that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit". Therefore, if there is pre-carriage there must be a notation or evidence that the shipped on board statement relates to the named vessel and not the pre-carriage by truck or rail or vessel.
I need to be clear that the on board date relates to the date the goods are on board the vessel ( at the port of loading stipulated in the credit) and not still on a truck etc.

Regards,
Yahya

[NigelHolt]

Yahya,

With the greatest respect, I do not see what you need has any relevance. What matters is what the UCP, in this case, UCP600 requires or permits.

Let us take a hypothetical example so as to avoid any misunderstanding.

A Credit requires the port of loading to be Southampton.

The bill of lading presented is a ‘pre-printed’ shipped on board B/L and states:

Place of receipt: Stratford Container Depot

Port of Loading: Southampton

Under UCP500 the B/L would automatically have to have an on board notation with the date, the name of the vessel and the port of loading, as it ‘indicate[d] a place for receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading’ per sub-Art. 23(a)(ii).

However, under UCP600 the B/L would not require any sort of OBN (unless it referred to an intended vessel) as it indicated shipment from the port of loading stated in the Credit, per sub-Art. 20(a)(iii).

Hope this puts the matter beyond any doubt.

Best regards, Jeremy

[edited 7/30/2007 10:53:38 AM]

[KimChristensen]

Dear all,

I agree fully with Jeremy – and the example given by him on this matter.

I must add however that I would make a distinction between the scenario where the “place of receipt” is NOT stated as a port (like the example given by Jeremy above) – and the scenario where it is in fact clearly a port.

So if the example were as follows:

Quote
Place of receipt: “Grimsby Port”
Port of loading “Southampton”

Vessel: “XYZ bay”

No specific on board notation – only the following:
“Shipped on board in apparent good order and condition on board the vessel for carriage …”
Unquote

And there is in fact doubt as to the PORT at which the goods are loaded – then I would most likely require something else – something more; like an explicit on board notation.

I am not sure how realistic this example is, but my view is that the drafting group has wanted to remove the reference to “place of receipt …. different from the port of loading” as article 19 would otherwise cover rules for multimodal transports.

The way I see it the document should clearly indicate:
The port mentioned in the credit, and the vessel sailing from that port – as well as the date.

Any other “places” on the B/L before or after the “port of loading/port of discharge mentioned in the credit” is of no relevance to the document examiner.

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

Kim,

Don't want to start a 'punch up' but I would regard your example as meeting the requirements of sub-Art20(a)(iii).

Regards, Jeremy