WHEN A MMTD REQUIRES AN ON BOARD NOTATION?

________________________________________
QUERY FROM AYMAN
________________________________________

Dear Mr. OLD MAN,
after my greeting …..

I want to get your value opinion about the meaning of point under UCP600 ARTICLE 19 :

ARTICLE 19 A (iii – b) ;

b. the transport document contains the indication "intended" or similar qualification in relation to the vessel, port of loading or port of discharge.

I want to confirm me understanding of that particular point, (b)

multimodal B/L allowed to indicate ''intented'' with respect to vessel , port of loading and port of discharge without the need for notation to indicat the actual vessel or port of loading and discharge

as the following example will clarify :

l/c require
Place of receipt: Cairo
Port of loading : Alexandria port
Port of destination : Antwerp

if a received B/L presented dd 1/3/2010 as indicates the follow :

place of receipt: cairo
port of loading : alexandria port
port of destination : Antwerp

vessel : ''mtv queen '' intented

the question is: as B/L multimodal as l/c required so, it will be examined under article 19 and it doesn't require notation in respect of
name of vessel . and B/L aceptable.

which isn't the case under port to port B/L in which if it indicate intended in respect of vessel or port of loading it must bear notation as per ucp600 article 20-a(ii) & (iii)

please clarify……

B.REGARDS….

________________________________________
COMMENT
________________________________________

Dear Ayman,

In line with ICC Opinion R641 and ICC Conclusion in On Board Notation Paper – Document 470/1128 with regard to MMTD, a dated on board notation clearly required when:
(i) the L/C so request.
(ii) the L/C requires shipment to be effected from a port to the place of final destination i.e. the first leg of the journey, as required by the credit, is by sea

If the MMTD evidences a place of receipt that is different to that stated in the L/C, and the place stated in L/C is a port, the dated on board notation will require the addition of the name of the vessel (on which the goods have been loaded, even if they have been loaded on the vessel named as the ‘intended vessel) and port of loading.

Regards,
Mr. Old Man

P/s: Please find attached below ICC’s related conclusion quoted from Document No.470/1128rev final – 22 April 2010 – Recommendations of the Banking Commission in respect of the requirements for an On board Notation:

QUOTE
Multimodal or Combined Transport Documents

Article 19 provides for an indication of the goods being dispatched, taken in charge or shipped on board. The applicable wording will depend upon the mode of conveyance for the first leg of the carriage. It should be noted that article 19 does not require an on board notation as a default position for most of the time. However, in line with ICC Opinion R. 641 (TA.650rev), a dated on board notation is clearly required when the credit so requests. It is also required when the credit requires shipment to be effected from a port to the place of final destination i.e. the first leg of the journey, as required by the credit, is by sea. If a multimodal or combined transport document nonetheless evidences a place of receipt that is different to the place stated in the credit, and that place stated in the credit is a port, the dated on board notation will require the addition of the name of the vessel and port of loading, unless the transport document evidences that the on board notation or pre-printed shipped on board wording applies to the named vessel and port of loading. The key, therefore, is for the credit either:
(a) to expressly require an on board notation, or absent that;
(b) to make clear whether the place from which the goods are to be taken in charge by the carrier is a sea port.
UNQUOTE