Vessel Age Certificate – Who Can Sign? A Tale of Two Scenarios and One Cautious Bank

Intro:

In this Q&A, we examine two real-world scenarios involving a certificate confirming the vessel’s age — a common LC condition. While both certificates appear to meet the content requirement, questions arise over the identity and authority of the issuer.

Is a letterhead necessary? Can any agent of the carrier sign such a certificate? And how should an issuing bank respond when the link to the carrier is less than crystal clear?

Read on for a reasoned assessment of both scenarios — and why the safest move for the issuing bank may still be:

“Reject first, argue later.” 

 ________

QUESTION

Dear Mr. Old Man,

The LC requires a certificate from the shipping company or their agent, confirming that the vessel is not more than 25 years old.

The certificate presented confirms the vessel’s age as per the LC.

• The Bill of Lading was issued by ABC as agent for the carrier PQR.
• The certificate of vessel’s age was signed by XYZ.

Let’s look at two different presentation scenarios:

Scenario 1:

• No company letterhead is used.
• The certificate mentions the B/L number and the vessel name.
• Signed by XYZ, and beneath the signature it simply states:

“Shipping company or their agent”.

My View:

Not acceptable.

• There’s no clear identification of XYZ as either the carrier (PQR) or their agent.
• Since PQR is named as the carrier on the B/L, and XYZ is not identified in any way as acting for PQR, the certificate’s issuer is ambiguous.

Scenario 2:

• Certificate is on official letterhead showing PQR’s logo.
• Signed by XYZ, who clearly identifies themselves as agent.
• The certificate includes the B/L number, vessel name, and date.

My View:

Acceptable.

• The carrier’s identity (PQR) is evident from the letterhead.
• The signer (XYZ) clearly acts as agent of the carrier.
• This meets the LC condition of “Shipping company or their agent.”

Let me know if you’d like a version for formal advising or if this will be part of a training note.

Best regards.

Rohini

_____

ANSWER

Dear Rohini,

Thank you for your query regarding the acceptability of the vessel age certificate under the LC condition requiring a certificate issued by the shipping company or their agent.

Having reviewed both scenarios, I would like to offer the following comments:

Scenario 2 – Acceptable

I fully agree with your assessment. In this case, the certificate:

• Is issued on a letterhead bearing the logo of carrier PQR,
• Is signed by XYZ, who clearly identifies themselves as agent, and
• References the BL number, vessel name, and date.

This setup provides sufficient clarity on the issuer’s identity and their authority to act as the carrier’s agent and therefore satisfies the LC condition.

Scenario 1 – Arguably Acceptable, But Risky

While I understand and appreciate your view that Scenario 1 should be rejected due to unclear identification of the issuer, I would also argue that:

• A letterhead is not strictly required under UCP 600 unless specified in the LC.
• The certificate mentions both the B/L number and vessel name, which may serve as a link to the underlying transaction.
• Though not the BL issuer, XYZ may still be an agent of the carrier — just as any authorized agent can initial corrections to a BL, not necessarily the one who issued it.

Therefore, from a commercially reasonable perspective, one could accept this document if satisfied that XYZ is indeed acting on behalf of the carrier.

However, I fully acknowledge that this view relies on subjective judgment and tolerance for inferred linkage, which may not align with a strict reading of UCP 600 Article 14 (face examination requirement). Since the certificate simply states “shipping company or their agent” without clearly identifying either role, a conservative checker could rightly reject it for lack of clarity on its face.

Conclusion

While Scenario 1 may be technically arguable as compliant, it sits in a grey zone. Therefore, if I were acting as the issuing bank, I would recommend adopting a “reject first, argue later” position — especially in the absence of explicit identification tying XYZ to the carrier.

This approach allows the issuing bank to preserve control and seek clarification or waiver from the applicant, without assuming compliance risks.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man