FREIGHT PREPAID VS FREIGHT PAYABLE AT DESTINATION — A LOOK BACK AS TA.958 APPROACHES

INTRODUCTION

With Technical Advisor Opinion TA.958 now on the table—specifically the question of whether a bill of lading showing both “freight prepaid” and “freight payable at D” should be considered conflicting under a credit that explicitly requires the document to be marked “freight prepaid”—the trade finance community is once again paying close attention.

As we all know, the ICC Banking Commission will meet on 23 January 2026 to deliberate and (hopefully) approve a final position on this matter. While waiting for that outcome, I thought this would be a good moment to revisit a very similar Q&A I handled back in 2011.

Although the terminology and shipping practices have evolved, the underlying principle remains remarkably consistent: when a bill of lading bears the required notation “freight prepaid”, should additional freight-related wording automatically result in a discrepancy?

Below is the earlier exchange—still surprisingly relevant today—that may help frame the current discussion around TA.958.

FREIGHT PREPAID VS FREIGHT PAYABLE AT BASEL – Mr. Old Man