An LC subject to UCP 600 included the following requirement:

“Ocean bill of lading indicating port of loading as china and port of discharge as B. Abbas, Iran''

The B/l presented indicated as port of loading china and as port of discharge B. Abbas, Iran.

In addition to this it also mentioned “place of final delivery as SEZ, Tehran”.

Does this constitute a discrepancy?

I shall be glad to receive your opinion on this issue.

Thanks for using the single window.

There are two issues here:

1) The place of final destination after the port of loading:

The requirement is that the B/L must:

"... indicate shipment from the port of loading to the port of discharge stated in the credit.."

(UCP 600 sub-article 20(a)(iii).

The commentary on UCP 600 reads (page 92):

"A bill of lading evidencing a place of final destination different from the port of discharge as stated on the documentary credit would be acceptable".

So that is not a problem

2) Range of ports / geographical area

The port of loading in the LC was mentioned as “China”. Note that ISBP (2007) paragraph 100 reads:

If a credit gives a geographical area or range of ports of loading or discharge (e.g., “Any European Port”), the bill of lading must indicate the actual port of loading or discharge, which must be within the geographical area or range stated in the credit.

The consequence of this is that on the B/L a port in China should be mentioned as the port of loading – not “China”

This would constitute a discrepancy.

Best regards

Kim Christensen