Mr Old Man Payment Q&A House Air Waybill under LCs – Is the Title a Discrepancy? By Mr Old Man Posted on 3 weeks ago 3 min read 0 0 71 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Reddit Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr In documentary credit practice, transport documents often come with different titles that can make examiners uneasy. One common example is the “House Air Waybill.” Does its title alone justify a discrepancy? Let’s take a closer look. QUESTION Dear Sir, We have asked for airway bill only. However, we have received an airway bill titled “House Air Waybill”. Can we raise a discrepancy for this? Hope for your prompt response. Regards, Ranjana Pathak ________ ANSWER Dear Ms. Pathak, Thank you for your question. At first glance, the title “House Air Waybill” may raise concern. However, under International Chamber of Commerce rules and practice, the title of a transport document is not, by itself, decisive. According to ISBP 821: Paragraph H1 clarifies that when a credit requires an air transport document, however named, it is to be examined under UCP 600 Article 23. Paragraph H2 further confirms that the document need not be titled “air waybill” or similar, even when the credit uses that terminology. Therefore, the mere fact that the document is titled “House Air Waybill” does not constitute a discrepancy. That said, the key issue lies not in the name, but in the substance of the document. Under UCP 600 Article 23, an air transport document must appear to be issued by: a carrier, or an agent acting for or on behalf of the carrier. A House Air Waybill is typically issued by a freight forwarder acting as principal. If the document does not indicate that the issuer is acting for or on behalf of the carrier, it may fail to meet the requirements of Article 23. Accordingly, you should not raise a discrepancy solely because of the title “House Air Waybill.” Instead, you should examine whether the document complies with Article 23 and the terms and conditions of the credit. Only if it fails in that respect would a discrepancy be justified. In short: The name may vary—but the issuer’s capacity must still stand scrutiny. Best regards, Mr. Old Man