Place of Issue on a Bill of Lading: Must it match the Loading Port?

Intro:

A colleague recently asked me whether a bill of lading (BL) can show the place of issue as a location in the country of destination, rather than at the place of receipt or port of loading, especially when the LC requires a multimodal transport document. Since this is a common point of confusion — and not explicitly addressed in UCP 600 or ISBP — I thought I’d share the Q&A below for reference.

__________

QUESTION

Dear Mr. Old Man,

Greetings. Not sure if I’m disturbing you with queries, but I would like to seek clarification regarding the below scenario.

I came across a document today in which:

• Place of Receipt: XXX in Portugal
• Port of Loading: YYY port in Spain
• Port of Discharge: PQR in France
• Place of Delivery: ABC in Germany

The LC calls for a multimodal transport document (MMTD). The place of issue in the bill of lading is mentioned as Germany (the country of destination), and the issuing agent is shown as “PVR Logistics Ltd, Germany” as agent for the carrier “PVR Logistics Ltd, Portugal”.

Generally, the place of issue is either the Place of Receipt or Port of Loading.

Can a bill of lading show the place of issue as a location in the country of destination?

I understand that UCP 600 or ISBP does not mention anything specific about the place of issue in a BL.

Does this scenario constitute a valid discrepancy?

Please clarify, Mr. Old Man.

Regards,

Priya

________

ANSWER

Hi Priya,

You’re absolutely right to observe that neither UCP 600 nor ISBP stipulates any requirement concerning the place of issue on a bill of lading. Therefore, you cannot raise a discrepancy solely on the basis that the BL was issued in the country of destination, rather than the place of receipt or port of loading.

In modern practice, bills of lading are often issued electronically, and the carrier or its agent may be located in a country different from where the goods were actually loaded. It is therefore not uncommon to see a BL issued in the country of destination or any location where the carrier has an operational office or agent. This alone does not constitute a discrepancy under UCP 600 or ISBP guidelines.

However, in contrast, there are documents such as Certificates of Origin where the place of issue can be material, particularly when the LC specifies that it must be issued by a designated authority (e.g., the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry). In such cases, if the place of issue is shown, it should logically correspond to the country of that authority.

To sum up: in your case, there is no valid discrepancy arising from the BL being issued in Germany, even though the loading port is in Spain.

I hope this clarifies your question.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man

_______

FUTHER QUESTION FROM PRIYA

Dear Mr. Old Man,

Thanks for the clarification. But I am unable to understand how it works in the actual scenario.

1.Are there any advantages in issuing BL like this.

2.what difference will BL make if issue Place in the country of destination.

In the documents, BL was issued on 30 th June 25, and onboard date as 21st July 25.

So, as per the explanation, BL was transmitted electronically and issued at country of destination, and the goods onboarded date was inserted … not able to picturise the scenario.

Sorry for the trouble. Can you plz explain the flow.

Thanks & regards,

Priya

______

FURTHER ANSWER FROM MR. OLD MAN

Hi Priya,

Thank you for your follow-up.

As I mentioned earlier, in modern practice, bills of lading (BLs) are often issued electronically, and the carrier or its agent may be located anywhere, including in the country of destination, not necessarily at the port of loading.

To clarify the likely flow in your case:

1. Goods were loaded on board the vessel on 21 July 2025, as indicated by the on-board notation.
2. The bill of lading was issued on 30 June 2025, likely reflecting an administrative or system-generated date, possibly tied to when the BL draft was prepared or released electronically by the carrier or its agent (in this case, in Germany).
3. The BL may have been electronically signed by the carrier or its agent based in Germany, or printed by the shipper from a carrier’s online platform. This is increasingly common in containerized and multimodal shipments.

To your questions:

1. Is there any advantage in issuing the BL this way?

In many cases, no major advantage — it’s simply how global shipping lines now operate: centralized documentation, digital workflows, and remote issuance hubs. It helps streamline operations and reduce paperwork at the port.

1. What difference does it make if the place of issue is in the country of destination?

From a documentary credit standpoint, no difference, unless the LC specifically requires the place of issue to be in a certain country. UCP 600 and ISBP do not treat it as a discrepancy.

In summary, although it may seem unusual, the scenario you described is not uncommon in today’s shipping practice. The BL is acceptable unless the LC states otherwise.

Hope this clears it up!

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man