|
Expert comments:
ND George (see bio)
 It
was a well presented piece of article that you wrote on the subject. Also,
the piece from the Chinese banker
was hilarious. Clearly a room has been provided in UCP for a potential for
dispute to the benefit of consultants (I am not one of them or at least not
yet) who generally make their money out of other people’s misery! Honestly,
I was under the impression that the old article was no longer applicable and
in practical terms the bankers were not to be concerned with the place of
receipt issue as long as port of shipment and on board is present. I am
learning. Learning never stops, is it not? Now reading Gary’s comments, let
me give a different spin to the issue.
-
If
place of receipt is different but no vessel name is given against
it (e.g. only mentions ‘rail’ or ‘truck’), place of receipt will be
ignored, provided Port of shipment box is filled in with the stipulated
port and the B/L is pre-printed as “On Board” and if not there is a
separate On Board notation with a date only. I take this position because
in shipping trade “On Board” is specific to sea shipment and not a term
used in overland conveyance. So, there is no confusion whether the on
board notation relates to loading on truck or a vessel.
-
If
there is vessel name appearing against place of receipt and there appears
vessel name in the port of loading as well i.e. two vessel names are there
in the B/L, then the on board notion should have vessel name and date in
order to satisfy the requirement that the presented document is a port to
port B/L from the port of loading mentioned in the credit.
Jia Hao (see bio)
 It is surprising to know that the drafting group of
UCP600 did not intend to change the practice stipulated in UCP500 Art
23(a)(ii) although this article is clearly removed from the UCP600.
It is dangerous and unreasonable when they
insist the "extended on board notation" while there is no such
requirement/stipulation in UCP600. It will cause great troubles when it
is challenged in the court, because at least UCP600 requires nothing in
clear wording about such extended on board notation.
From common sense when compared UCP500 with
UCP600 as well as ISBP subject to UCP500 with ISBP subject to UCP600 the
requirement for such extended on board notation has been clearly removed
from the UCP600.
It is plain and easy for a reasonable person to
understand and interpret UCP600 as changing the practice of UCP500 which
requires extended on board notation.
However, from perspective of transport practice,
as explained in ICC R282 and the Argument 2 by Mr. Gary Collyer, the on
board notation possibly relates to being on board from place of receipt
another carrier rather than the vessel in port of loading, and the on
board date will be possibly the date of leaving from the place of
receipt instead of the port of loading stipulated in the credit. However,
to my knowledge, in most cases the on board notation on a bill of lading
which indicates clearly the port of loading and only one vessel just
relates to the vessel leaving from the port of loading. That is why I
accept the UCP500 Art 23(a)(ii) to be removed considering UCP just
covers common practice. Nonetheless, the prudent way is to require the
on board notation to state clearly the on board vessel at the port of
loading, and in my opinion, it is improper for the drafting group to
remove the Art 23a(ii) requirement and ISBP (subject to UCP500)
paragraph 82 if they have no idea of changing the practice.
And congratulations for you providing us with a
good article with logical analyses from full multi-perspectives.
Bogdan Ilie (LC Specialist
from Romania)
It is indeed very welcome and I think
you pointed very well all the issues.
If you don't mind I wish to share
with you my questions.
Mr.Collyer wrote 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. On this basis...was seen
to actually encourage a bill of lading to evidence pre-carriage (whereas
if this were the intention, the credit should have called for a combined
or multimodal type document)"
I understand that the intention was
to issue an article exclusively for a port-to-port bill of lading. In
such a case why the Drafting Group didn't just act so, stating that a
port-to-port bill of lading MUST NOT evidence any place/port of receipt
and/or of final destination even if an on board notation indicating the
port of loading and vessel's name is stated separately ?! Wouldn't it
have been better and easier to do it so?
At least the traders would have
known that if any place/port of receipt and/or final destination will be
involved the LC will not ask for a b/l subject to art.20 - port-to-port
bill of lading.
This is the impression I have after
reading Mr.Collyers arguments.
I might be very, very wrong but I'm
still wondering: Was this really the intention or is just an excuse
offered as a reply to the many questions raised?
Now we have the UCP600's article
20(a)(iii), and for me is crystal clear: There is nothing to interpret
as Mr. Jiao Hao very well pointed out.
|
