When a Feeder Vessel Is an Ocean Vessel

A reader’s question to Mr. Old Man on interpreting Bills of Lading in transshipment cases

Introduction

In container trade, it’s common to see Bills of Lading (B/Ls) that mention both a feeder vessel and a mother vessel. However, confusion often arises when the same vessel appears as both the “Feeder Vessel” and “Ocean Vessel” on different pages of the B/L. Is that acceptable? And what exactly qualifies as an “ocean vessel”?

Recently, Priya wrote in with a thoughtful question that reflects this very situation.

Question from Priya

Dear Mr. Old Man,

Hope you are doing well. We just wrapped up our Diwali celebrations — hence the slight delay in writing.

Thank you very much for allowing me to raise my query.

I came across a Bill of Lading today with the following details:

Page 1:

• Place of Receipt: ABC Port, Malaysia
• Port of Loading: ABC Port, Malaysia
• Ocean Vessel: Motif
• Port of Discharge: XYZ Port, Vietnam

(The “Pre-carriage” field was left blank.)

Page 2:

Shipped on board Feeder Vessel Motif at ABC Port, Malaysia and transshipped at PQR Port, Malaysia in Vessel Evergreen.

My questions are as follows:

1. The B/L shows the same vessel (Motif) as both Feeder Vessel (on Page 2) and Ocean Vessel (on Page 1). Is this acceptable?
2. Normally, when transshipment occurs, the Ocean Vessel is the mother vessel. But in this case, it’s referred to as a Feeder Vessel. Is that correct?
3. What exactly does “Ocean Vessel” mean — the vessel on which the goods are initially loaded, or the vessel that actually arrives at the destination port?

Kindly clarify.

Warm regards,

Priya

________

Answer from Mr. Old Man

Dear Priya,

Thank you for your interesting and well-structured question. I’ve come across similar cases where the “shipped on board” notation shows goods loaded on a feeder vessel at the port of loading and later transshipped onto a mother vessel at another port.

In your Bill of Lading, the on-board notation reads:

“Shipped on board Feeder Vessel Motif at ABC Port, Malaysia and transshipped at PQR Port, Malaysia in Vessel Evergreen.”

Although this situation is not specifically covered in ICC Document 470/1128 Rev. Final – Recommendations of the Banking Commission on On-Board Notations, it is quite common in containerized transportation.

Typically, goods are first loaded onto a feeder vessel at the port of loading. The feeder then sails to a hub (transshipment) port, where the containers are transferred to a mother vessel (mainline vessel) bound for the final destination.

A feeder vessel is generally a smaller regional ship that connects secondary ports to major hub ports. It is not usually considered an “ocean vessel,” but some feeders are ocean-going by design, depending on their classification and trade route.

In your case, Motif acts as the feeder vessel carrying containers from ABC Port to PQR Port for transshipment onto the mother vessel Evergreen.

Let me address your specific questions:

       1. Feeder vessel shown as Ocean Vessel:

In this context, it is acceptable. Since Motif actually performs the first sea leg from the port of loading, it can be regarded as the ocean vessel for the purpose of documentary evidence under the LC.

       2.  Feeder vs. Mother Vessel terminology:

Correct — the mother vessel is usually the large mainline ship that performs the long-haul voyage. However, the feeder performs the initial ocean leg. Thus, a vessel like Motif can appear as both “Feeder” and “Ocean Vessel” in the B/L, and this is not contradictory.

      3. Meaning of “Ocean Vessel”:

“Ocean vessel” generally refers to any ship engaged in sea transport — whether short-sea or long-haul. Therefore, the feeder vessel may also qualify as an ocean vessel if it carries goods over the sea from the port of loading.

Conclusion:

The Bill of Lading and its on-board notation are acceptable. The terminology difference arises from the feeder’s dual role — performing the first ocean leg before transshipment to the mother vessel.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man