SHIPPED ON BOARD PRE-CARRIAGE VESSEL

QUESTION

Anonymous writes:
Dear Mr. Old Man,

Pls help me with this situation:

In TA743rev, it stated "The Banking Commission agreed that the wording of an on board notation can correct an anomaly in the data appearing elsewhere on a bill of lading BUT this will not always be the case".

Please read the following case:

The B/Ls showed:

Ocean Vessel: Vessel L
Port of Loading: Sibu, Malaysia
Port of Discharge: Hong Kong

There was also an on board notation stating "Shipped on board MV 'N' at Sibu, Malaysia on 18.11.2010

May I have the opinions on whether it is a discrepancy?
——————–

ANSWER

Hi,

I don’t know whether you have read TA743rev thoroughly. If you have, please focus on the on board notation wording, which says “SHIPPED ON BOARD VESSEL N AT SIBU, MALAYSIA ON 18.11.2010 FOR TRANSHIPMENT VIA BINTULU ON VESSEL L”. It is the wording of the notation that interprets the data appearing in respective fields of the B/L. There is no discrepancy in this case (see full text of TA743rev attached).

The on board notation in your case is different from that in TA743rev. It shows shipped on board the vessel N – pre-carriage vessel which did not leave the port of loading. The correct on board notation must show shipped on board Vessel L – the ocean vessel that left the port of loading.

Best regards,
Mr. Old Man

Attachment: Full text of TA743rev for your reference

Official Opinion TA743rev – Unpublished UCP 600
From UCP600 – UCP 600 sub-article 20 (a) (ii)

QUERY
We received a refusal notice from an issuing bank. The discrepancy raised by it is as follows:
+ ON BOARD NOTATION NOT SHOWING GOODS LOADED ON BOARD THE OCEAN VESSEL (VESSEL L)
Following are the L/C requirements (among others):Field 44E: Sibu, Malaysia
– Field 44F: Hong Kong
– Field 46A: Full set marine ocean bills of lading ……
Following is an extract of the presented bill of lading:

Pre-carriage by: Vessel N – Place of Receipt: Sibu, Malaysia
Ocean Vessel: Vessel L – Port of Loading: Sibu, Malaysia
Port of Discharge: Hong Kong – Place of Delivery: Hong Kong

SHIPPED ON BOARD VESSEL N AT SIBU, MALAYSIA ON 18.11.2010 FOR TRANSHIPMENT VIA BINTULU ON VESSEL L.

We, as the nominated bank, argued that the on board notation was very clear and that data appearing as part of an on board notation always overrides if there is any conflicting data shown elsewhere on the bill of lading.

The issuing bank reverted to us, asking us to refer to ICC Opinion R350, example 3.
While R350 provides a solution to a poorly structured bill of lading, we do not think it is the only solution. We assume the on board notation provided above would offer another solution. Please confirm whether our assumption is correct and whether the solution provided in R350 is NOT the only solution for this sort of poorly structured bill of lading.

Analysis

Whilst it would be correct to say that ICC Opinion R350 does not offer the only solution to a poorly structured bill of lading, it would also be incorrect to say that an on board notation will always override where conflicting data appears in a bill of lading.
In the context of this query, the credit required shipment from Sibu in Malaysia. Two vessels were shown in respect of the port of Sibu, with destination the port of Hong Kong. However, the on board notation went further than the usual format of merely quoting a date, or a date together with the name of the vessel and port of loading. It also referenced the fact that the goods would be transshipped via Bintulu on to Vessel L.

Conclusion

In respect of the bill of lading referred to in this query, the on board notation indicates that goods have been shipped on the vessel named as the pre-carriage Vessel N, at the port of loading stated in the credit (Sibu). There is also an indication, within the on board notation, that the goods will be transshipped on Vessel L at a port other than the port of loading stated in the credit (i.e., Bintulu). In this case, the wording of the notation provides the applicable interpretation of the data appearing in the respective bill of lading fields. There is no discrepancy.