| From time to time it appears
that there is an LC rule - that for some reason or another is not discussed
for a long time - but then suddenly the LC Community starts discussing its
practical application - and then it seems that there are a vast number
"interpretations". This is the case with ISBP (2007) paragraph 114 which
reads:
If a bill of lading states that the goods in a
container are covered by that bill of lading plus one or more other bills of
lading, and the bill of lading states that all bills of lading
must be surrendered, or words of similar effect, this means that all
bills of lading related to that container must be
presented in order for the container to be released. Such a bill of lading
is not acceptable unless all the bills of lading form part of the same
presentation under the same credit.
The practical
application has been debated
both at the
letterofceditforum - but also on lcviews.com we have provided answer to
two specific questions asked:
SWQ_82: FCL/FCL
and part cargo
SWQ_90:
Container movements
Due to the discussions
surrounding these two answers - we noted the following:
... we urge the readers of lcviews
to provide us with real examples of transport documents that are of
interest in the light of this issue...
Below
are the scanned bill of lading copies we have received
- with thanks. If you have a view
on whether or not they are discrepant according to ISBP paragraph 114 - then
kindly let us know on: lcviews@lcviews.com
Bill of lading
example No. 1
Bill of lading
example No. 2
Bill of lading
example No. 3
Bill of lading
example No. 4
Thanks in advance.
Reader
comments:
| Dear Sirs,
In my opinion, BL No.1 & No.2 are all discrepant,
provided that they are from different LC transactions.
Just as the bills say "one of two cargoes in the
container no.xxx", I can see that both bills are involved with the same
container. Since the bills show "FCL-FCL", it implies that the container
should be released against these 2 bills together. In this respect, both
bills reflect the exact scenario that ISBP 114 covers.
Similarly, BL No.3 is also a discrepancy. I
agree with Sheilar's analysis in the letterofcreditforum.
Best regards
Frank
[15 June 2008]
|
| Dear Friend,
Thank you for your great work in this field!!
IMHO all bills of lading reported (i.e. B/B No.
1+2+3) are not discrepant according to paragraph 114 ISBP. Moreover two
(1 + 2) bills have the same number.
I enclose copy of a bill of lading
(B/L No. 4), bearing the clause not
acceptable (by banks) in LC availment as per the above mentioned ISBP
paragraph.
Hoping to be useful
Ciao
Antonio Picchi
[15 June 2008]
|
|
