AWB SHOWS DHL BOTH AS SHIPPER AND CONSIGNEE – WHY?

 QUESTION

 Dear Sir,

I hope this message finds you well.

I would like to ask for your opinion on a situation we encountered related to LC document handling, in accordance with our central bank’s regulations.

In this case, the applicant had already taken delivery of the goods based on copy documents. Later, when we received the original documents under the same LC, we noticed that the original airway bill (AWB) was missing. Instead, a DHL courier waybill was submitted as part of the originals.

Upon reviewing the earlier copy documents, we saw that both a DHL waybill and an AWB were included. However, the AWB showed DHL as both the consignor and consignee, which suggests that DHL may have retained the original AWB.

Given this, we processed the original document set despite the absence of the original AWB — but we are uncertain if this was the correct approach, as the LC specifically required presentation of the original AWB.

Could you please share your view on this situation? Particularly, what might be the implications of accepting a document set without the original AWB under these circumstances?

Thank you and best regards,

Suraj

——

ANSWER

Hi Suraj,

You didn’t provide full details, but I understand the situation as follows:

Since the goods had already arrived at the port of destination before the original documents were presented to your bank, the applicant submitted photocopies of the documents and requested your bank to issue a shipping guarantee in order to take delivery of the goods. Your bank agreed and issued the guarantee accordingly.

Later, when the original documents were presented under the LC, you noticed that the original airway bill (AWB) was missing. Instead, a DHL courier waybill was included. Upon checking the earlier copy documents, you saw that both a DHL courier waybill and an AWB were there, but the AWB listed DHL as both consignor and consignee. Based on this, you suspect that DHL may have retained the original AWB.

You’re now asking whether this setup implies that DHL retained the original AWB, and whether processing the documents without it was acceptable.

Here is my view:

Since your bank issued a shipping guarantee to allow the applicant to take delivery of the goods, the bank has already taken on an obligation—regardless of whether the later-presented documents under the LC constitute a complying presentation or not.

Regarding the AWB showing DHL as both consignor and consignee, it’s likely that DHL was acting as a freight forwarder. In such cases, the AWB in question may have been a Master Air Waybill issued by the carrier to DHL, who in turn could have issued House Air Waybills to the shipper/exporter. DHL would then use the Master AWB to take possession of the goods from the airline and deliver them to the actual consignee against the House AWB.

In this scenario, it’s not unusual for the original Master AWB to be retained by DHL as part of their standard logistics process. That could explain why it was not included in the presented originals.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man