CY/CY for LCL? And That Feeder Vessel Onboard Notation Confusion…

Intro:

Two classic bill of lading dilemmas — and two areas where LC checkers often hesitate:

1. Can a B/L indicate CY/CY even when the cargo is clearly LCL?
2. Is an on-board notation on the feeder vessel acceptable when the port of loading matches the LC?

These are questions that continue to pop up in practice — and while the rules remain silent on some points, experience (and a bit of logic) goes a long way. Here’s how Mr. Old Man unpacks them.

_______

QUESTION

Dear Mr. Old Man,

Greetings. I have two queries, both regarding bills of lading.

Query 1

I came across a B/L that shows:

• “1 x 20’ [Container No.] Part of container”
• Service type: CY/CY

Generally, CY/CY is understood to indicate FCL (Full Container Load). When the B/L mentions “Part of container,” can we interpret this as LCL (Less than Container Load)?

Is a B/L showing both “part of container” and CY/CY acceptable, or is this a valid discrepancy?

Query 2

This relates to the onboard notation in cases involving a pre-carriage vessel.

The B/L indicates:

• Place of Receipt: Place A
• Port of Loading: Place A
• [Blank field for Pre-carriage vessel]
• Ocean vessel: Vessel Y
• An onboard notation reads: “Shipped on board Vessel Q at Place A on [xxx]”

Also mentioned are:

• Transshipment port
• Transshipment vessel: Vessel Y (same as the ocean vessel)

In the invoice, Vessel Q is identified as a feeder vessel.

Can we interpret Vessel Q as the pre-carriage vessel and Vessel Y as the ocean vessel? Given that the Place of Receipt and Port of Loading are the same, and that Vessel Y leaves the POL specified in the LC, is this B/L acceptable or discrepant?

Sorry for the long question. Looking forward to your clarification.

Best regards,

PSP

________

ANSWER

Hi PSP,

Thanks for your thoughtful questions! Here’s my take:

1/ Is it a discrepancy if the B/L shows “part of container” but also indicates CY/CY?

A B/L may show CY/CY even when the goods are LCL. While it’s typical for:

• FCL → CY/CY, and
• LCL → CFS/CFS,

there is no strict requirement under UCP 600 or ISBP linking the cargo type to the movement terms.

So, unless the credit explicitly requires consistency between those terms, a B/L showing CY/CY for part-container (LCL) cargo is not a discrepancy.

 2/ About the onboard notation when involving a pre-carriage vessel:

According to ICC Document 470/1128 Rev. Final (Recommendations of the Banking Commission on On-Board Notations):

If a B/L shows a place of receipt and a pre-carriage vessel, an on-board notation is required on the vessel that leaves the port of loading, stating the name of the vessel and port of loading.

In your case, the port of loading is Place A, and Vessel Y is the ocean vessel that leaves from Place A. Therefore, the required onboard notation should be:

“Shipped on board Vessel Y at Place A on [xxx]”

However, in container shipping, especially in Southeast Asia, it’s common for goods to be physically shipped on board a feeder vessel (like Vessel Q) from the port of loading, and then transshipped to the mother vessel (Vessel Y) at another port.

In such cases, this on-board notation is widely accepted:

“Shipped on board Vessel Q at Place A on [xxx]”

and also mentions:

Transshipment at [Port] on Vessel Y (Mother/Connecting Vessel)

This practice is not explicitly addressed in ISBP or ICC Doc 470/1128, but is common and often accepted provided the B/L clearly shows:

• Place of Loading = Place A (matching LC), and
• Vessel Q departed from Place A (as evidenced by the onboard notation),
• Vessel Y is shown as the transshipment vessel or ocean vessel.

So, if the B/L includes both notations, e.g.:

Shipped on board Vessel Q at Place A on [xxx]

Transshipped at [port] on Vessel Y

…it should be acceptable, assuming no other LC condition is breached.

I hope this helps clarify your doubts!

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man