A MULTIMODAL BILL OF LADING OR A PORT-TO-PORT BILL OF LADING?

QUESTION

Dear Nguyen,

Please find below the case:

LC Extract:

44E: Any port in India

44F: Ho Chi Minh City Port

46A: Documents required

1. Full set bill of lading evidences onboard notation consignee to issuing bank and notify applicant.

47A:Addtional Conditions:

1. Multimodal bill of lading is not acceptable.

Documents presented:

Bill of lading titled as Port-to-port Bill of lading presented evidences as follows:

Pre-Carriage: By Road

Place of receipt: Bangalore(landlocked city in India)

Port of loading: Chennai

Port of Discharge: Ho Chi Minh Port

Also evidences onboard date with vessel name and Port of loading as per ISBP paragraph 745 – E6-d.

The nominated bank documents  stating that Multimodal bill of lading is presented which is not allowed in the LC as per LC field 47A-1.

Is it nominated bank is correct is rejecting the documents as per LC field 47A? Is it however named concept is applicable for this scenario?

Please comment your opinion.

Regards

Vijay

————–

ANSWER

Dear Vijay,

The discrepancy raised by the nominated bank is not valid, hence, it is not correct in rejecting the documents.

According to ISBP 745 paragraph E1 (a), a requirement in an LC for the presentation of a transport document, however named, only covering a port-to-port shipment, i.e., an LC that contains no reference to a place of receipt or taking in charge or place of final destination means that UCP 600 article 20 is to be applied in the examination of that document.

The LC in question calls for a bill of lading covering a port-to-port shipment and a port-to-port bill of lading (not a multimodal bill of lading) is presented, hence, Article 20 will be applied in the examination of that bill of lading.

By the way, I would like to quote ICC’s conclusion in their Opinion R280 to evidence that a bill of lading may show a place of receipt or place of final destination as an inland point:

“UCP (i.e., UCP 500) draws no distinction between a place of receipt or place of final destination (which are different from the named ports of loading or discharge) being either an inland point or another port. In many instances the place of receipt would evidence the beneficiary’s location, the forwarders’ or shipping companies’ container yard or container freight station – all of which would be inland points. If one were to read the reverse of a bill of lading, “on board” would include, amongst others, on board the container lorry. This supports the stance of a place of receipt being an inland point.

Under Article 23 [now Article 20 UCP 600], a bill of lading showing either an inland point or other port would be acceptable provided that a valid on board notation was included”.

The “however named” concept appears at the beginning of articles 19 – 24 of UCP 600. The words “however named” make it clear that the name or the title of the document is not  important. What  matters is that the content of the document must comply with the terms and conditions of  the LC and provisions of UCP 600.

Notwithstanding the above, there is no need to apply the “however named” concept to this case as the bill of lading presented is a port-to-port bill of lading as required by the LC.

Kind regards,

Nguyen Huu Duc