6 min read


Dear Mr. Duc,

I am from Techcombank, Trade finance import department. I have admired your works and your knowledge, and you are the one who inspire me a lot. Today I would like to seek your wise counsel about some cases

Case 1:

+ L/C stipulate: Port of discharge: Hochiminh port

+ B/L indicate: Port of discharge: Vung tau port. Place of delivery: Hochiminh port. Moreover, there are a notation: “Port of discharge: Hochiminh port

Can we raise the discrepancy: B/L showing different Port of discharge or we can accept this BL as per ISBP E8(b)? (pls note the E8(b) does not state the situation whether port of discharge filed is filled or not)

Case 2:

+ About mathematical calculations: can issuing bank recheck the calculation and if the calculation is wrong, can issuing bank raise the discrepancy?

 Case 3:

I have a big question about the flight date show on the AWB, since the ISBP 745 has different opinion about shipment date of AWB in comparison with ISBP 681. In ISBP 681 paragraph 140 accept flight date as the date of shipment, but ISBP 745 H8(a) states that AWB need to contain specific notation of actual date of shipment (which is in line with UCP600 23A(iii)). My question is, can we treat the flight date as “specific notation of actual date of shipment” in the new ISBP? Or the AWB should state notation such as “shipment date: xxxx” or “actual shipment date:xxx”


Case 4:

We have recently received a lot of bill of lading on which only showed the “port of destination”, and there is nowhere else on this B/L show notation about Port of discharge. The question is, can we raise the discrepancy: “B/L not showing port of discharge”?


We are looking forward to your early reply. Thank you in advance for spending time for me.

Best regard

Luong Le Hoang (Mr.)




Case 1:

Strictly speaking, you can raise the discrepancy based on sub-article 14 (b) as the BL indicates both Vung Tau port and Hochiminh port as port of discharge.

However,  as far as I’m concerned , I tend to accept the BL as per ISBP 745 E8(b) as it contains a separate notation stating port of discharge Hochiminh port.

Case 2:

Issuing bank should not raise such discrepancy as the negotiating bank may reject the discrepancy based on ISBP 745 A22.

Case 3:

According to ICC Opinion R859/TA839rev, the date stated in the box “Flight/Date” cannot be considered to be the shipment date.

They reason as follows:

UCP 600 determines the issuance date as the date of shipment; any deviation requires a specific notation. Thus, UCP 600 accommodates different forms of air waybills and is not constrained to the boxes stated. The box “Flight/Date” in an air waybill is used by the carrier to indicate the scheduled flight and date; it does not qualify as a specific notation as per UCP 600 sub-article 23 (a) (iii). It is to be classified as “other information” which, in accordance with the last paragraph of the afore-mentioned sub-article, “will not be considered in determining the date of shipment.”

Case 4:

No. I guess L/C requires Huangpu port, China to be indicated as port of discharge. It appears in the port of final destination box, hence, it is acceptable as per ISBP 745 E8(b).

Kind regards,

Mr. Old Man


Load More Related Articles
Load More By Mr Old Man
Load More In Q&A

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also


Nhiều bạn nhăm nhe định chơi xe đạp mong ước sẽ có một body đẹp. Họ thưởng hỏi Mr. Old Man…