When Four Routing Fields Appear… but the LC Still Asks for an AWB

Every now and then, Mr. Old Man receives a question that quietly whispers:

“Somebody drafted this LC on a Friday afternoon…”

Today’s case is one of those — when the LC includes all four routing fields (44A, 44E, 44F, 44B) but still requires an Air Waybill. Let’s untangle the knot.

QUESTION

Dear Sir,

Under airfreight with EXW – Seller’s Factory (Incoterms 2020), the pickup place is the seller’s warehouse.

Now, in an LC the routing is stated as follows:

• 44A: Place of Receipt – Seller’s Factory, China
• 44E: Airport of Departure – Beijing Daxing Airport
• 44F: Airport of Destination – Mombasa, Kenya
• 44B: Place of Final Destination – Buyer’s Warehouse, Kenya

The presented AWB only mentions the airport of departure and destination. It does not show 44A or 44B.

1. Will this be considered a discrepancy?
2. Can this be mitigated by stating “Ex Works – any airport in China”? Would this not shift responsibility to the seller?

Best regards,

C.R. Nishanth

_________

ANSWER

Dear Nishanth,

Thank you for your thoughtful question — a very good example of how LC drafting and UCP practice sometimes drift in opposite directions.

Let’s break it down.

1.  Why an AWB does not need to show 44A or 44B

Under UCP 600 Article 23 and ISBP 821, an Air Waybill is examined only for:

• Airport of departure, and
• Airport of destination

Nothing more.

It is not a multimodal transport document and therefore is not expected to indicate:

• Place of receipt (44A)
• Place of final destination (44B)

So even though the LC includes all four routing fields, once the LC specifically requires an AWB, the AWB must be examined as an AWB.

No discrepancy can be raised for the absence of 44A and 44B.

2.  What ICC Recommendation Paper actually says

The ICC Recommendation for Selecting the Appropriate Transport Document

(Part of Document No. 470/1128) states:

When any three, or all four, of fields 44A, 44E, 44F and 44B are incorporated into a credit, the appropriate transport document is a Multimodal Transport Document (MMTD).

This is a drafting recommendation for issuing banks — to help them choose the correct document type.

But (very importantly):

• ICC drafting guidance cannot override UCP 600 during document examination.
• If the LC requires an AWB, we examine an AWB — even if the LC was poorly drafted.

So again: no discrepancy for missing 44A/44B on the AWB.

3. The EXW concern (“Ex Works – any airport in China”)

You are right to be cautious.

If the LC wording is changed to:

“Ex Works – any airport in China”

then it contradicts EXW under Incoterms® 2020, because EXW means the seller’s delivery obligation ends at their premises, not at an airport.

Adding “any airport in China” would incorrectly shift responsibility to the seller.

So this is not a good mitigation method.

In Summary

• LC includes all four routing fields → ICC recommends MMTD.
• LC nevertheless requires AWB → examine under UCP 600 Article 23.
• AWB must show only airport of departure and airport of destination.
• No discrepancy for missing 44A / 44B.
• Do not modify EXW wording to include “any airport”.

Hope this helps clear the cloud around this routing puzzle.

Best regards,

Mr. Old Man