SIGNING OF BILLS OF LADING (2)

31 Comments

1. 

   anonymous

   August 4, 2010 at 11:08 am

   Thu writes:dear Mr Old Man. L/C call for AIR insurance policy or certificate … showing claim payable in invoice currency.ben bank present + certificate (policy) of Marine insurance+ not showing claim payable in invoice currency but just showing the sum insured in USD (invoice currency)pls comment. thanks for yr advice

   Reply

2. 

   mroldmanvcb

   August 5, 2010 at 7:08 am

   1) The question does not tell me how the shipment is made and what kind of transport document is required under the LC, a marine BL or an AWB? If the shipment is by sea and a set of marine bills of lading is required to be presented, it is not logical to require an air insurance policy/certificate. Similarly, if the shipment is by air and an AWB is required, it is unreasonable to insist on a marine insuarance policy.Not quite appropriate, but based on the concept of “however named” in transport documents, I would accept the insurance provided it covers the risks specified in the LC and complies with other terms and conditions.2)Firstly, it should be understood that currency sown in the invoice is that shown in the LC and also that shown in the insurance document. There are divided opinions on whether the insurance policy that does not include the required statement “claim payable in invoice currency” is discrepant. It seems that ICC has no opinions on the issue and the majority say it is a discrepancy if the insurance does not indicate such a statement. They are afraid that the insurer will pay in equivalent local currency. As for me, I tend to accept the insurance policy which is issued in the currency of the LC/invoice provided nothing to the contrary is stated. Of course, if it is better for the insurance policy to indicate such a statement.Let me know if there is any authorized opinion to the contrary or a real case where the insurer pays in a currency other than the insurance currency.

   Reply

3. 

   anonymous

   September 20, 2011 at 4:09 pm

   Anonymous writes:Dear Mr old ManL/C required port of dischg as 'Any port in China'. B/L showing port of dischg as 'Hong kong Port'. Does it constitue a disp.?Appreciate yr comments.Thanks.

   Reply

4. 

   mroldmanvcb

   September 20, 2011 at 10:09 pm

   Hereunder is my comment to a similar question in DCPRO in 2009:QuoteDespite the fact that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and practising “One Country Two System” with high degree of autonomy, I do believe China will strongly protest if anyone says Hong Kong now does not belong to China. Hong Kong is part of China. So, if L/C requires shipment to be effected from any Chinese port, B/L showing on board at Hong Kong is acceptable.Unquote

   Reply

5. 

   anonymous

   September 21, 2011 at 10:09 am

   Anonymous writes:Dear Mr Old manI received a packing list with the header "PACKING LIST" but the content only state the description of goods and price only.without any indication of packing details.Can i accept this docs?.Best regards. Thanks.

   Reply

6. 

   anonymous

   September 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm

   Anonymous writes:Dear Mr old manDraft omitted payee. Do it need to be endorsed by the drawer?Thanks.

   Reply

7. 

   mroldmanvcb

   September 22, 2011 at 11:09 pm

   Originally posted by anonymous:

   Anonymous writes:Dear Mr old manDraft omitted payee. Do it need to be endorsed by the drawer?Thanks.

   In LC transactions, the draft must be issued by the drawer "pay to the order of the presenting bank (payee") who will endorse the draft. The draft is issued by the beneficiary/drawer. So, why don't you ask them to correct the draft?

   Reply

8. 

   mroldmanvcb

   September 22, 2011 at 11:09 pm

   Originally posted by anonymous:

   Anonymous writes:Dear Mr Old manI received a packing list with the header "PACKING LIST" but the content only state the description of goods and price only.without any indication of packing details.Can i accept this docs?.Best regards. Thanks.

   Notwithstanding that the L/C did not provide the wording as to the content of the PL, the PL presented at least must fulfil the function of the document required.If the PL presented does not indicate packing details, it fails to fulfil the function of the PL.

   Reply

9. 

   anonymous

   September 23, 2011 at 9:09 am

   Anonymous writes:Dear Mr Old manThanks for the reply but actually i received the incoming docs from the nego bank and as the issuing bank can i quote it as discrepancy if there is no endorsement on the draft by the drawer which omitted payee.If it was endorsed by the drawer do the nego bank still need to endorsed?.Thanks.

   Reply

10. 

    mroldmanvcb

    September 25, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    There is various opinions as to whether a draft is part of the documents required under Field 46A and whether the discrepancy on the draft constitutes a valid refusal. My view is that the draft is not the document required under F 46A, hence, if the draft contains any discrepancy, the issuing bank can ask the presenter to replace with the correct one.If the drawer endorses the draft payable to the order of the negotiating bank then the negotiating bank should continue to endorse the draft.

    Reply

11. 

    anonymous

    January 6, 2012 at 11:01 am

    ELIN writes:Hi Mr Old ManWhat if invoice showing one of the merchandise called for under DC but 'FREE OF CHARGE' ?DC requirement : Machine and spare parts for EUR 20,000.00Invoice showing:Machine – EUR 20,000.00Spare Parts – FREE OF CHARGE is it a discrepancy?.Thanks

    Reply

12. 

    mroldmanvcb

    January 7, 2012 at 7:01 am

    Hi,It is recognized that shipment of merchandise NOT CALLED FOR in the L/C may delay the entire shipment from clearing customs and preclude the applicant’s ability to receive the merchandise for which the L/C was issued. In accordance with ISBP paragraph 64(b), invoice showing merchandise NOT CALLED FOR in the L/C (even if stated to be free of charge) is not acceptable. However, I would accept the described invoice based on the following reasoning:1) Spare parts are CALLED FOR in the L/C.2) L/C does not stipulate the quantity of spare parts. And neither does the invoice.3) The phrase “FREE OF CHARGE” is just additional information.Just my own reasoning. Whether or not the invoice is acceptable depends on how each document checker approaches the issue.Regards,Mr. Old Man

    Reply

13. 

    anonymous

    January 10, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Elin writes:Hi Mr Old ManThanks a lot for yr respond. I have another doubt as follows:(1) Invoice showing measurement as 52.22 whereas B/L showing measurement as 52.218. How should i treat this documents? Thanks .

    Reply

14. 

    mroldmanvcb

    January 12, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    There is no discreapancy. The following is quoted from ICC R218:"Rounding-off the gross weight in this case (bill of lading showing gross weight 44.595 and other documents showing 44,595.2) cannot be considered as an inconsistency amongst the documents".

    Reply

15. 

    anonymous

    May 17, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    key writes:Good'day Mr. Old Man,DC called for insurance cert/policy endorsed in blank, for full cif value ….. and insurance document presented showing Insured party in the name of the applicant and endorsed by beneficiary, does it constitue a disp.? what if insured party showing as "To order" and endorsed by beneficiary? Can i accept this docs?.Appreciate yr comments. Thanks.

    Reply

16. 

    mroldmanvcb

    May 17, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Hi,If the insurance document indicates the applicant as the insured party, then it is the applicant that will endorse the document if needed. The beneficiary is not the insured party in this case, hence, he is not in position to endorse the document. It's a discrepancy.An insurance document should not be issued to order or to the order of the beneficiary as it is not a negotiable document like a bill of lading. However, this bad practice remains unchanged somewhere in the world of DC. Therefore, the fact that the insurance document is issued to order and endorsed by the beneficiary is acceptable.Best regards,Mr. Old Man

    Reply

17. 

    anonymous

    June 5, 2012 at 7:06 am

    Sara writes:Dear Mr Old ManAs a transferring bank, draft should be drawn on us (transferring bank) or the issuing bank ..Thanks.

    Reply

18. 

    mroldmanvcb

    June 5, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Draft should be drawn on the issuing bank and not on the transferring bank unless it is a confirming bank.

    Reply

19. 

    anonymous

    June 19, 2012 at 8:06 am

    SM SEOW writes:Hi Good MorningLC field 44e airport of departure states ANY AIRPORT IN GERMANY and airway bill presented showing GERMAN AIRPORT.Since the specific airport in GERMANY not mentioned in the AWB, is this considered as discrepancy in the context ofpara 141 and 142 of the ISBPTHANK YOU

    Reply

20. 

    mroldmanvcb

    June 19, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Yes, it is discrepant. German Airport is not an actual port. ICC has answered a similar question (R571/TA360): If the L/C requires shipment from a chinese port, the CPBL presented is expected to indicate the actual port of loading rather than a statement such as Chinese port.

    Reply

21. 

    anonymous

    June 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    Key writes:Dear Mr.Old Man,DC under field 45A showing incoterms as " TRADE TERM : EX-WORK SINGAPORE OR MALAYSIA (INCOTERMS 2010) OR DELIVERY IN HONG HONG".Invoice presented showing incoterms under description of goods as " EX-WORK SINGAPORE OR MALAYSIA (INCOTERMS 2010) OR DELIVERY IN HONG HONG" WITH B/L PRESENTED SHOWING PORT OF LOADING ALLOWED AS PER DC. Does it constitue a disp.? Appreciate yr comments. Thanks.

    Reply

22. 

    mroldmanvcb

    June 21, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    Silly but acceptable!

    Reply

23. 

    anonymous

    July 16, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Key writes:Dear Mr.Old Man, Received a copy of unsigned Non-Negotiable Bill of Lading by Carrier/Agent. is it a discrepancy?. Thanks

    Reply

24. 

    mroldmanvcb

    July 24, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    Copy of non-negotiable B/L need not be signed.

    Reply

25. 

    thanh thanh

    December 18, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Dear Mr Old man,
    I would like to ask your help about signing on B/L as follows:

    APL Co., Ltd- as carrier

    (signed)
    ………..

    APL (america) co., LTD- as agent

    Dear Mr Old Man, in this case, B/L just indicate ” as agent”, not “as agent for / on behalf of the carrier”, is it accepted?
    if we are the nego bank, and we are raised the above discrepancy by the issuing bank, how can we answer when the issuing cite that rule from isbp 745?
    .
    Thanks and best regards.

    Reply

• 

  mroldman

  December 18, 2016 at 5:01 pm

  The B/L is discrepant. The issuing bank can cite such a discrepancy based on UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a) (i).

  Reply

26. 

    Duy Le

    December 3, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    Dear Mr. Old Man !

    You please help to provide your opinion and the ICC opinion (if any) for case as below:
    + The AWB is presented with capacity of signor: ABC Co., Ltd (signed)- As carrier
    + 1 box on AWB shows: “Agent of carrier: ABC Co., Ltd”
    Is this AWB discrepant (i.e capacity of signor is unclear) ?

    Best regards !

    Duy Le

    Reply

• 

  mroldman

  December 3, 2017 at 11:01 pm

  No discrepancy!

  Reply

• 

  Duy Le

  December 4, 2017 at 12:44 pm

  Dear Mr. Old Man ,

  Thanks for your response !

  But is there any ICC opinion for this case (I am trying to find but not yet to now)? Because there are 2 opinions in my team: one is raising discrepancy “unclear capacity of signer” and my opinion is the same with yours.

  Thanks and best regards !

  Reply

• 

  mroldman

  December 4, 2017 at 8:16 pm

  ICC Opinion TA625rev

  QUERY

  The issue is whether the ocean bill of lading signed by a party, ABC Co Ltd, acting both as agent and also as carrier, can satisfy the requirements under Article 23 of UCP 500 and the ICC Position Paper no. 4 of 1 September 1994 and whether the issuing bank can refuse the documents based on the sole discrepancy, “B/L showing two different capacity of signing party (as agent and as carrier)”?

  On the bill of lading, the words “Signed as agent for the Carrier” are pre-printed andthere is added text “as agent for the carrier: ABC CO. LTD”and then a stamp showing “For and on behalf of ABC CO. LTD and an authorized signature”.

  Referring to Query R 354(3) of ICC Publication 632 pertaining to a bill of lading indicating that the agent was signing “for the master” and “for the carrier”, it was concluded that the capacity in which the agent was signing was unclear. The agent signing the bill of lading should have deleted either “for the master” or “for the carrier”.

  The bill of lading in question shows “as agent for the carrier: ABC CO. LTD”, indicating that ABC Co. Ltd is the carrier. On that basis and applying the logic in ICC Opinion R 354(3), the signing would be by another company as agent or by ABC Co. Ltd as carrier and not as an agent for themselves. Thus, the documents presented are discrepant.

  ANALYSIS

  It should be noted that the content of ICC Position Paper No. 4 has been superseded by the various Opinions given by the ICC in respect of naming the carrier and signing of transport documents.

  Sub-article 23 (a) (i) includes: “appears on its face to indicate the name of the carrier and to have been signed or otherwise authenticated by:

  – the carrier or a named agent for or on behalf of the carrier, or

  – the master or named agent for or on behalf of the master.

  Any signature or authentication of the carrier or master must be identified as carrier or master, as the case may be. An agent signing or authenticating for the carrier or master must also indicate the name and the capacity of the party, i.e. carrier or master, on whose behalf that agent is acting, and … “.

  Based on the requirements of sub-article 23 (a) (i), the bill of lading must identify the party that is signing and the signing party must be identified as carrier or master or, in the event of an agent signing for the carrier or master indicate the capacity in which they are signing i.e., on whose behalf (carrier or master) they are signing.

  Due to the fact that this question goes beyond the general application and interpretation of signing requirements for a bill of lading as expressed in the UCP, i.e., it extends to the right of a party to sign in its own name as agent for a carrier of the same name, Opinions have been solicited from the ICC’s Transport and Commercial Law & Practice Commissions.

  View of the ICC Transport Commission:

  “Paragraph 4 of the query states: ‘The bill of lading in question shows ‘as agent for the carrier: ABC CO. LTD’, indicating that ABC Co. Ltd is the carrier. However, we interpret this part of the bill of lading to indicate that ABC Co. Ltd is the agent. In most cases, carriers typically issue bills of lading through agents, and the bill of lading forms are printed in anticipation of the document being signed by the agent (hence the pre-printed text ‘Signed as agent for the Carrier’), and therefore contain a blank space in which the agent can place its name. In our view, thissection of the bill of lading, where text has been added,is the blank for the agentto fill in and is not usually there to indicate the name of the carrier. The name of the carrier is indicated under the section ‘For and on behalf of’.

  This means that on the bill of lading in question the agent and the carrier both appear to have thesame name,and there appear to be a number of possible explanations as to why this might be the case.

  – One possible explanation would be that the carrier and the agent operate under the same name. Although the agent is normally a different entity from the carrier, it appears that it isnot unusual for large container lines to ownthelocal agency offices, which will operate as part of the main global brand. So, for example, the container line ABC Co. Ltd might own the agents ABC Co. (Country H), who will be partof the main ABC Co.brand. In this case, if the agent sees itself as being part of ABC Co. Ltd rather than as a separate entity, then it might just identify itself as ABC Co. Ltd without seeing the need to specify itself as ABC Co. (Country H).

  – It could also be the case that a department of the carrier company acts as the agent. In this case, the department acting as the agent may sign the bill of lading as the agent to denote its operational role in relation to the shipment, notwithstanding the fact that there is no legal distinction between itself and the department performing the operational role of the carrier.

  – Another explanation is that, in the limited number of cases where the carrier signs the bill of lading itself, it may opt to complete the blankspace for the ‘agent’ rather than revise the form or leave the agentspace empty. In this case, the signature would be aimed at binding the carrier as the carrier.

  The above points reflect quite accurately the current container shipping practice.Based on the practices outlined above,there is little ground to consider the document inconsistent.”

  View of the Commercial Law & Practice Commission

  – “The CLP Commission regards letters of credit as instruments of payment and would favour interpretations of the UCP which facilitate rather than hinder payment.

  – It is clear that shipping practice varies in the manner in which bills of lading are signed. Article 23 of UCP 500 – and now article 20 of UCP 600 – injected a welcome dose of precision and clarity into this area, a clarity which advanced the interests both of shippers and receivers and of bankers holding bills of lading under letters of credit by making sure that these three parties knew the identity of the carrier.

  – It is important that the requirements of article 23 of UCP 500 are not interpreted too restrictively lest the gain in clarity bring with it the pain of unnecessary rejections. It would appear that the bill of lading says not once but twice who the carrier is: there can be no ambiguity about the fact that ABC Co Ltd is taking responsibility for the carriage of the goods. In these circumstances, rejection of such a bill of lading would appear to be unnecessary and unwelcome from the beneficiary’s and possibly from the applicant’s point of view. It may also expose the rejecting bank to the possibility of action for wrongful rejection.”

  CONCLUSION

  We can find no reason for refusal of a bill of lading that is signed in the manner shown under “Query”. However, from the information provided, it is not clear whether the bill of lading indicated the name of the carrier. This may only be determined from the transport document itself.

  Reply

• 

  Duy Hoang

  December 5, 2017 at 8:05 am

  Thanks for your help so much ! It is very helpful with me !