Mr Old Man Payment Q&A IS TORONTO A SEAPORT? By Mr Old Man Posted on 13 hours ago 3 min read 0 0 6 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Reddit Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr In trade finance, banks are sometimes tempted to play detective when they see something that doesn’t look “geographically correct.” But under UCP 600, their role is not to check maps or shipping routes—it’s to examine documents on their face. A recent question about whether Toronto can be treated as a “port of discharge” illustrates this point well. QUESTION Dear Mr. Old Man, Our LC states: Field 44A: Place of Receipt – HO CHI MINH CITY, VIETNAM Field 44B: Place of Final Destination/Place of Delivery – TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA Field 46A: Full set of Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading required The multimodal bill of lading presented shows: Place of Receipt: HO CHI MINH CITY, VIETNAM Port of Discharge: TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA Place of Delivery: TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA The issuing bank refused the documents, stating that “Toronto is not a seaport, therefore the indication of Toronto as Port of Discharge is a discrepancy.” Is this refusal valid? Thanks and best regards, Ms. Ng. ________ ANSWER Dear Ms. Ng., Thank you for your question. In my opinion, the issuing bank’s refusal is not valid. According to UCP 600 sub-article 14(a), banks must examine documents on their face to determine whether they appear to constitute a complying presentation. They are not required to consult external sources—such as maps or port directories—to verify whether a named place is a seaport or an inland city. In this case, the LC requires a multimodal transport document showing delivery in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The document presented does exactly that: it shows Toronto as the Place of Delivery, matching the LC. The fact that the carrier has also indicated Toronto as “Port of Discharge” does not create a discrepancy, because compliance is judged solely against the LC terms and the face of the document, not geographic accuracy. Conclusion: There is no discrepancy. The issuing bank’s refusal, based on the argument that Toronto is not a seaport, is not justified under UCP 600. Best regards, Mr. Old Man