CPBL Signed by Agent for the Carrier: When a Captain’s Name Doesn’t Save the Day

Sometimes in trade finance, documents try to be “too smart.” A CPBL signature is one of those tricky places: a small change of words can decide if documents are compliant or discrepant. Let’s look at a real case from Ms. Woo.

QUESTION

Dear Mr. Old Man,

Good day.

Customer has presented a Charter Party Bill of Lading (CPBL). The LC allows such presentation. But the signing capacity seems not as per UCP 600 article 22.

The signature on the CPBL shows:

“xxx as agent for and on behalf of the carrier Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S Captain: Capt Mabe T. Benagua.”

To me, this is a valid discrepancy because the carrier should not sign a CPBL. But our checkers said it is acceptable, unless the LC clearly says otherwise.

Appreciate your guidance.

Thank you,

Ms. Woo

________

ANSWER

Dear Ms. Woo,

This is a very good question. You are right to feel confused, because the way this CPBL is signed mixes two different capacities.

Article 22 of UCP 600 is very clear. A CPBL must be signed in one of these ways:

1. By the master, or on behalf of the master, or
2. By the owner, charterer, or their agent, clearly shown as signing for the owner or charterer.

But in your case, the CPBL says: “as agent for the carrier … Captain: Capt Mabe T. Benagua.”

Here are the problems:

• “Carrier” is not a capacity that UCP 600 article 22 accepts for signing a CPBL.
• Adding the captain’s name after this does not really fix the problem. In fact, it creates more confusion, because it looks like the document is trying to sign both “for the carrier” and “by the captain” at the same time.

According to ICC Opinion R834 (TA.793rev), a CPBL signed by the carrier or its agent is a discrepancy, unless the LC specifically allows this. ICC also noted that in some regions, signing by the carrier or its agent has become common practice, but this does not make it automatically acceptable under UCP 600.

So, under today’s UCP rules, the bill is discrepant.

But in any future revision of UCP 600, it is quite possible that this issue could be addressed if it is identified that practice is changing.

Your first thought was correct. Unless the LC clearly says that signing by the carrier (or its agent) is allowed, the signature you described should be considered a discrepancy.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man