Missing Notify Party in Bill of Lading: Addition Is Allowed, Substitution Is Not

Intro

Questions around “notify party” often look harmless at first glance—until a small detail turns into a discrepancy. This case is a good reminder that while practice allows some flexibility, the credit’s requirements still draw the line.

Question

Dear Mr. Old Man,

Hope you are doing well. Sorry for troubling you with my queries.

This one is with reference to Notify Parties.

LC states BL to mention Notify Party A and Notify Party B.

When the documents were presented, the BL showed only Notify Party A. In place of Notify Party B, it mentioned a different party C.

As per ISBP 821, para E14(a):
“When a credit stipulates the details of one or more notify parties, a bill of lading may also indicate the details of one or more additional notify parties.”

Query:

1. Will the above BL be discrepant?
2. In line with ISBP para E14(a), can it be argued that since ISBP doesn’t state that BL “must” also indicate the details of notify parties as mentioned in LC, this presentation is compliant?

Many thanks for your time and efforts.

Best regards,

Arun Ambar

____

Answer

Dear Arun,

Thank you for your question—this is a classic situation where a small wording nuance leads to a bigger compliance issue.

Under ISBP 821 Paragraph E14(a), a bill of lading may indicate the notify party (or parties) required by the credit and may also include additional notify parties not called for in the credit.

However, this provision allows addition, not substitution. It does not relieve the presenter from complying with the notify parties specifically required by the credit.

At the same time, UCP 600 Article 14(d) requires that data in a document must not conflict with the credit. Where a credit expressly requires two named notify parties (A and B), the absence of one of them (Notify Party B) means the document does not comply with that requirement.

In your case, the bill of lading shows Notify Party A and introduces Notify Party C, but fails to indicate Notify Party B as required. This is not merely an addition—it results in a missing required party, and therefore constitutes a discrepancy.

The inclusion of Notify Party C, in itself, is acceptable under ISBP. The issue is the omission of Notify Party B.

In short:

1. The bill of lading is discrepant.
2. The argument based on ISBP 821 E14(a) is not valid, as the rule permits additional notify parties but does not allow omission or replacement of those required by the credit.

I hope this clarifies your query.

Best regards,
Mr. Old Man