Poor banker:
God morning this is the poor banker. You have submitted documents under LC
number GGG-45-A. They are at your usual high standard – there is however one
small detail that you need to correct. The shipped on board notation on the
bill of lading is insufficient. Since it indicates a place of receipt
different from the port of loading, the on board notation must also include
the port of loading stipulated in the LC as well as the name of the vessel
on which the goods have been loaded
Smart beneficiary:
Why is that?
Poor banker:
Well – according to UCP 600 article 20,a,ii it must indicate that the goods
have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in
the credit.
Smart beneficiary:
But it does!? The required port is mentioned in the
port of loading field – and it bears a pre-printed shipped on board wording.
What is the problem?
Poor banker:
Since there is a place pf receipt different from the port of loading – it is
not sufficiently clear that the on board wording relates to the vessel in
the “port of loading” field.
Some bills of lading states that the shipped on
board statement refers to the named vessel OR the conveyance carrying the
cargo from the place of receipt.
Smart beneficiary:
Okay then, but am I correct in saying that what you are asking me right now
was reflected clearly in the UCP 500 – but taken out of the UCP 600.
Poor banker:
That is correct.
Smart beneficiary:
Then kindly tell me why it was taken out of the UCP 600 – if it is still so.
Poor banker:
This was discussed with ICC’s Transport Commission and it was decided that
the structure of this article should reflect the role of a bill of lading
i.e., to cover shipment from a port to a port.
The “place of receipt different from port of loading
part” as you mention was seen to actually encourage a bill of lading to
evidence pre-carriage – whereas if this were the intention, the LC should
have called for a multimodal transport document.
Smart beneficiary:
You confuse me a bit there. What you are saying indicates to me that such
“place of receipt” would be something else than a port. How can you
otherwise talk of multimodal transport document? If that was the case under
UCP 500 – then how come this “place of receipt” is now a potential port
under UCP 600?
Poor banker:
You said the word: “potential” – the point is that the banker must be 110%
sure that the goods are on board at the required port!
Smart beneficiary:
Okay then. I must say that I simply do not understand why it was taken out
if it is still so. Tell me this then: Is it not correct that paragraph 82
from the 2003 version of ISBP was not carried through to the 2007 version?
Poor banker:
That is correct!
Smart beneficiary:
Why?
Poor banker:
Because this paragraph was directly linked to UCP 500 article 23,a,ii –
regarding the place of receipt different from the port of loading.
Smart beneficiary:
Does this mean that the practice reflected in ISBP from 2003 paragraph 82
does not apply anymore?
Poor banker:
Oh no. It still applies! There is an Opinion from the ICC with the same
content. This one will also apply in respect of UCP 600 sub-article 20,a,ii.
Smart beneficiary:
Why was it removed then?
Poor banker:
Because the lines it referred to in the UCP 500 was removed.
Smart beneficiary:
But you just said it would refer to other lines – with same intent – in the
UCP 600?
Poor banker:
Yes!
Smart beneficiary:
Why was it removed then?
Poor banker:
Because the lines it referred to in the UCP 500 was removed.
Smart beneficiary:
Ehhh hmm. Think we are going in circles. I will hang up now – I need to make
a few phone calls. I must change the bill of lading, bank and payment
instrument before the end of the day. So please excuse me. I am in a hurry.
Goodbye.
Poor banker:
??!!
|
