QUESTION
Dear Mr. Old Man,
I have a case relating notify party in bill of lading.
LC requires: Full (3/3) set of originals clean shipped on board … and notify the applicant with full name and address.
LC applicant:
MKH CO.,LTD
…….. DIEN BIEN PHU STREET, HO CHI MINH CITY, VIETNAM
Bill of Lading presented shows two notify parties as follows:
Notify party 1:
ABB TRADES PTE’., LTD SINGAPORE
……. TAMPINES STREET 22, HEX … SINGAPORE.
Notify party 2:
MKH CO.,LTD
…… DIEN BIEN PHU STREET, HO CHI MINH CITY, VIETNAM
Is the above described Bill of Lading acceptable?
Looking forward to receiving your soon reply.
KC
—————-
ANSWER
Hi,
Notify party is the party that is to be notified of the arrival of the goods covered in the bill of lading. Normally, the notify party stated in the bill of lading is the LC applicant but it may be any party or parties that may have a direct or indirect interest in the goods and need to know the arrival of the goods.
According to ISBP 745 paragraph E14 (a) when LC stipulates the details of one or more notify parties, the bill of lading may also indicate the details of one or more additional notify parties.
The bill of lading indicating MKH CO.,LTD as notify party is deemed to comply with the LC requirement. ABB TRADES PTE ., LTD SINGAPORE should be treated as an additional notify party. As there is no prohibition in the LC with regard to additional notify parties, the bill of lading in question is acceptable.
Kind regards,
Mr. Old Man
Shaun
February 14, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Dear Mr Old Man,
LC issued with ” ….made out to order and notify ABC Co., Ltd”.
But on the original Bill of Lading, under notify party, it filled as
“ABC Co., Ltd, 345 Nice Street, Choo Coo Park, Seoul, Korea”.
The applicant name on the LC is
ABC Co., Ltd
345 Nice Street,
Choo Coo Park, Seoul, Korea
Will it be discrepancy for adding address (345 Nice Street, Choo Coo Park, Seoul, Korea) in BL?
Please kindly advise.
Thank you.
Shaun
mroldman
February 14, 2017 at 9:13 pm
Acceptable
Shaun
February 14, 2017 at 9:22 pm
Thank you so much for your advice.
Mr Old Man
April 9, 2021 at 8:07 am
No.
Mr Old Man
April 11, 2021 at 12:22 pm
Acceptable
Shaun
February 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm
Hi Mr Old Man,
LC: Loading Port: Kalimatan, Indonesia
BL: Loading Port: Kalimatan, Indonesia
BL issuing date and Place : Kalimantan Indonesia, 3 Feb 2017 (include one more word “n” in Kalimatan.
LC: 47A: Addition Condition: Minor typographical error and spelling mistake which do not change the meaning, amount, quality and quantity are acceptable in the LC as well as in documents.
Will it be discrepancy?
Thank you.
Shaun
mroldman
February 17, 2017 at 8:32 am
No discrepancy!
Shaun
February 17, 2017 at 6:34 pm
Thanks a lot.
Shaun
February 20, 2017 at 6:35 pm
Dear Mr Old Man,
LC: Size (crushed) 0-50mm : xxxx
Certificate of Analysis : Size 0-50mm : xxxx (not include crushed)
Will it be discrepancy?
if bank said discrepancy, how should I explain to them.
Thank you.
Shaun
mroldman
February 27, 2017 at 8:16 am
No discrepancy. Size 0-50mm is complying with the L/C terms whether or not metal scrap is crushed or not.
Sam
February 23, 2017 at 5:36 pm
Explain below please
If multiple transport document submitted and if means of conveyance is same than shipment isn’t considered partially
If multiple transport document submitted and if mean of conveyance is different than shipment is considered partial
mroldman
February 27, 2017 at 8:36 am
1) ok. A presentation consisting of more than one set of transport documents evidencing shipment commencing on the same means of conveyance and for the same journey, provided they indicate the same destination, will not be regarded as covering a partial shipment, even if they indicate different dates of shipment or different ports of loading, places of taking in charge or dispatch.
2) Yes. A presentation consisting of one or more sets of transport documents evidencing shipment on more than one means of conveyance within the same mode of transport will be regarded as covering a partial shipment, even if the means of conveyance leave on the same day for the same destination.
Sam
March 1, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Hi just could you please clarify below
1)if lc need port of landing as ABC and final delivery xyz . Would the document be discripent if invoice or transport document shows
POL and POD
Place of receipt and POD
Place of receipt and final destination
2) if lc ask place of receipt and final delivery
Where as invoice and transport document shows
POL and POD
place of receipt and POD
PoL and final destination
mroldman
March 1, 2017 at 5:38 pm
It’s acceptable. Read the following that can help clarify your question:
In a multimodal transport document, when a credit requires shipment to commence from a port, the named port of loading should appear in the port of loading field. However, it may also be stated in the field headed “Place of receipt” or words of similar effect, provided there is a dated on board notation evidencing that the goods were shipped on board a named vessel at the port stated under “Place of receipt” or words of similar effect.
A multimodal transport document is to indicate the place of receipt, dispatch, taking in charge, port of loading or airport of departure stated in the credit. When a credit indicates the place of receipt, dispatch, taking in charge, port of loading or airport of departure by also stating the country in which the place, port or airport is located, the name of the country need not be stated.
In a multimodal transport document, when a credit requires shipment to be effected to a port, the named port of discharge should appear in the port of discharge field.
However, the named port of discharge may be stated in the field headed “Place of final destination” or words of similar effect provided there is a notation evidencing that the port of discharge is that stated under “Place of final destination” or words of similar effect. For example, when a credit requires shipment to be effected to Felixstowe, but Felixstowe is shown as the place of final destination instead of the port of discharge, this may be evidenced by a notation stating “Port of discharge Felixstowe”.
A multimodal transport document is to indicate the place of final destination, port of discharge or airport of destination stated in the credit. When a credit indicates the place of final destination port of discharge or airport of destination by also stating the country in which the place or port is located, the name of the country need not be stated.
The named port of loading, as required by the credit, should appear in the port of loading field on a bill of lading. However, it may also be stated in the field headed “Place of receipt” or words of similar effect, provided there is a dated on board notation evidencing that the goods were shipped on board a named vessel at the port stated under “Place of receipt” or words of similar effect.
The named port of discharge, as required by the credit, should appear in the port of discharge field within a bill of lading.
However, the named port of discharge may be stated in the field headed “Place of final destination” or words of similar effect provided there is a notation evidencing that the port of discharge is that stated under “Place of final destination” or words of similar effect. For example, when a credit requires shipment to be effected to Felixstowe, but Felixstowe is shown as the place of final destination instead of the port of discharge, this may be evidenced by a notation stating “Port of discharge Felixstowe”.
Sam
March 2, 2017 at 1:50 pm
Hi need clarification
In sea way bill pre printed word date of receipt or dispatch is filled still there has to b separate notation on board on sea way bill which will b considered as date of shipment , is this same rule applicable to awb if the flight no and and date of flight is mentioned in pre printed box , do we still need a separate notation and what will b date of shipment , awb issue date or pre printed date on awb or notation date
mroldman
March 2, 2017 at 4:32 pm
YES
I quote herewith ICC opinion which can help clarify your question:
Quote
According to UCP 600 sub-article 23 (a) (iii), an air transport document must appear to
indicate the date of issuance and this date will be deemed to be the date of shipment unless the air transport document contains a specific notation of the actual date of shipment, in which case the date stated in the notation will be deemed to be the date of shipment.
This query raises the question of whether a date in the box “Flight/Date” of an air waybill is to be considered such a specific notation.
The query also refers to ISBP 745 paragraphs H8 (a) and (b) which affirm the position of UCP 600. ISBP 745 paragraph H8 (b) includes examples of boxes in an air waybill that do not classify as a specific notation.
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.”
CONCLUSION
The date stated in the box “Flight/Date” cannot be considered to be the shipment date.
Unquote
Sam
March 5, 2017 at 2:49 pm
Thks I received document where dispatched date in in per printed box but no notation so I have take n bill of lading date as dispatch date am I correct
And even no dispatch date is mentioned in awb I will consider awb issue date as dispatch date
mroldman
March 6, 2017 at 7:58 am
OK
Sam
March 2, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Could u explain below para meaning
A stipulation in a credit that freight forwarder bill is not acceptable has no meaning in the context of the title format content or signed of awb unless credit provide specific requirements detailing how the awb is to b issued and signed in the absence of these requirements such a. Stipulation is to b disregarded
mroldman
March 2, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Another ICC Opinion can help answer your question:
“In the context of UCP 600 and letters of credit, the term “freight forwarder bills of lading” has no meaning – whether in respect of them being allowed or not allowed.
Where freight forwarder transport documents are stated to be not acceptable, the term is ambiguous and does not clearly define the type of document that would be acceptable. For example, it is not clear whether such a credit is seeking to exclude the content of sub-article 14 (l) or whether it extends to the manner in which the bill of lading is to be signed. A document examiner will not be in a position to determine the status of the party signing when it signs as carrier.
None of the UCP 600 transport articles refer to the party that is to “issue” the respective transport document. The requirement is that the document must comply with the content of the applicable article and that the document may be “however named”. In addition, sub-article 14 (l) states “[A] transport document may be issued by any party other than a carrier, owner, master or charterer provided that the transport document meets the requirements of articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 24 of these rules.” It therefore follows that issuance of a transport document by a freight forwarder is an established and acceptable practice under the UCP. It should not be forgotten that irrespective of the issuer, one of the stated requirements in the referenced articles, with the exception of article 22, is that the document indicate the name of the carrier and be signed by the carrier, the master (in respect of articles 19, 20 and 21) or a named agent for or on behalf of the carrier or the master”.
sam
March 4, 2017 at 5:14 am
A credit requires the presentation of ‘3 / 3’ (that is, three of three) original multimodal transport documents. The presented document indicates that four originals have been issued. The beneficiary has presented three originals. The nominated bank has refused the documents for the absence of one original multimodal transport document. The beneficiary is arguing that the credit required only three originals to be presented. Whose position is right
mroldman
March 4, 2017 at 11:14 am
Hi,
According to Article 20, A bill of lading must appear to bee the sole original bill of lading or, if issued in more than one original, be the full set as indicated on the bill of lading.
According to ISBP 745 A29, when a transport document or insurance document indicates how many originals have been issued, the number of originals stated on the document is to be presented
So, a bill of lading should indicate the number of originals that have been issued. All original marine bills of lading stated on the bill of lading must be presented.
Kind regards,
Mr. Old Man
Sam
March 5, 2017 at 3:03 pm
1) when the transport document has to b named and sign and is it for all mode of transportation
2)when the transport document need only sign no name
3) as per lc incoterm mention as ucp600 cip Germany 2017 can we just mention cip Germany in transport and invoice .what if lc mentioned on cif Germany and we mentioned up600 cif Germany 2017 in invoice and transport and other documents
4)as per lc
Place of receipt A
Port of loading B
Port of discharge C
Final destination D
Lc required shipment from A to D and no transshipment allowed
If there is use road transport from point A to B and sea/air from point B to C and again road transport from Cto D will it b considered as transipmnet
mroldman
March 6, 2017 at 9:09 am
1&2: A transport documents covered by UCP 600 articles 19-25 must be signed unless its is a copy. Please refer to UCP 600 articles 19-25.
3: According to ISBP C8, when a trade term is stated as part of the goods description in the credit, an invoice is to indicate that trade term, and when the source of the trade term is stated, the same source is to be indicated. For example, a trade term indicated in a credit as “CIF Singapore Incoterms 2010” is not to be indicated on an invoice as “CIF Singapore” or “CIF Singapore Incoterms”. However, when a trade term is stated in the credit as “CIF Singapore” or “CIF Singapore Incoterms”, it may also be indicated on an invoice as “CIF Singapore Incoterms 2010″ or any other revision.
I wonder there is no Incoterms 2017. So, it is not acceptable if invoice and/or other documents indicate CIF Germany 2017
4. No. Where the credit stipulates ABCD, a multimodal tranport document which covers at least two different modes of transport is required to be presented. It is hard to prevent a transhipment in a multimodal transportation as a result even the credit prohibits transhipment multimodal bill of lading can state ‘Transshipment may/will take place.”
Sam
March 6, 2017 at 12:31 pm
Thks brother
In above case ABCD could u give me example if we want to make it as transshipment
Sam
March 6, 2017 at 12:35 pm
I read that to calculate insurance when there is no cif value we should consider honour/negotiate value or gross value of invoice whichever is high
I have doubt because invoice presented to honor will be same value of gross invoice. If u give example will help
Sam
March 6, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Hi please clarify below
If insurance as per lc required all risk. And in policy we mentioned institution cargo institution strike will that be sufficient no where in insurance mentioned as all risk and how is it if it is vice versa
2) can we put notation if the insurance certificate is issued after shipment date
3) can we mentioned to order instead name of bank or applicant
4 ) do we need to mentioned full address of bank as per lc in insurance or if we just put xyz bank name only
mroldman
March 6, 2017 at 9:21 pm
I am too busy to answer many questions at a time. Just one question at a time is encouraged
Sam
March 7, 2017 at 1:43 pm
Hi iam so sorry to ask u so many questions as I am answering my exam any way next time I will ask u one question at a time if u could reaply above question s it would be great help and favor I assure u will ask u only one question next time I sincerely apologize for inconvenience
Danushka
March 12, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Dear Mr. Old Man,
We have issued a LC quoting field 45A as follows,
“7050 pcs Mouse and Keyboard”. The total value of LC was USD 31,855/-.
Also in additional condition (47A) we further stated that “Free of charge goods are acceptable”. Also, LC has stated partial shipment is not allowed and there is no tolerance given.
Documents were presented to the issuing bank with the commercial invoice good description stated as “7050 pcs Mouse and Keyboard”. However, Invoice break up of the goods were as follows.
1. Computer Keyboard 4270 Pcs @ USD 5.5 = USD 23,485.00
2. Computer Keyboard 50 Pcs @ USD 5.5 = USD 275.00 (Free of Charge)
3. Computer Mouse 2700pcs @ USD 3.1 = USD 8,370.00
4. Computer Mouse 30pcs @ USD 3.1 = USD 93.00 (Free of Charge).
Despite the Total is USD 31,855 (Excluded Free of charge value of USD 368.00) the total of Pcs are counted as 7050 (Including the pieces that are stated as free of charge). Can we quote a discrepancy as “Short Shipped.”?
mroldman
March 14, 2017 at 10:36 am
I’m afraid not in this case. No unit price is stated in the L/C. If it is stated then you can raise the discrepancy.
Danushka
March 18, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Thks
Minh
March 20, 2017 at 12:22 am
Dear Mr Old Man,
I have a case with following details:
+ LC expiry date and place: 170228 in India
+ Lastest shipment date: 170131
+ Period for presentation: 21 days after shipment date but within the validity of the credit
+ Shipment date: 170216
+ The docs present at the Negotiating bank counter on: 170603
+ The issuing bank (in Vietnam) receive the docs at 170309
In this case, I have discrepancy: Late shipment.
Could I consider ‘LC expired’ as other discrepancy?
mroldman
March 29, 2017 at 4:41 pm
As a matter of courtesy, just state “L/C expired”.
AT
April 9, 2021 at 6:10 am
Dear Mr Old Man,
LC issued with ”FULL SET(3/3) OF CLEAN ON BOARD OCEAN BILL(S) OF LADING MARKED
‘FREIGHT PAYABLE AS PER CHARTER PARTY’ MADE OUT TO ORDER, BLANK ENDORSED AND NOTIFY APPLICANT”.
APPLICANT NAME: ABC PTE LTD
NO.10 AVENUE, XUWEI NEW AREA CN
But on the original Bill of Lading, under notify party, it filled as
“ABC PTE LTD NO.10 AVENUE, XUEWEI NEW AREA CN”
Will it be discrepancy indicate “XUEWEI” instead of “”XUWEI” (ABC PTE LTD NO.10 AVENUE, XUEWEI NEW AREA CN) in BL?
Please kindly advise.
Thank you.