On-board-notation for a MMTD (Multimodal Transport Document)
Dear all,
Look at this case, please:
Suppose a LC requiring a MMTD(Multimodal Transport Document) and stipulating:
44E:Port A
44F:Port B
44B:Place C
the MMTD indicating:
Place of receipt: Place D (without any indication of pre-carriage)
Port of loading: Port A
Port of discharge:Port B
Place of delivery:Place C
preprinted wording:"shipped on board in apparent good order and condition..."
Would this MMTD need a further on-board notation?
Would anyone kindly share his view on this one?
Thank you
Sheilar
asics shoes have a high reputation in the world now. asics mens.They are known with the best quality and unique design. There are many classes of the asics running shoes, such as, Onitsuka Tiger Rotation 77, asics womens, asics tiger, onitsuka tiger Coolidge Lo and so on. As the running shoes, they must be designed with more athletic. According to this misgiving, asics gel stratus is designed specially. They have the light weight, although they are used the best materials. asics onitsuka tiger Mexico 66 and Men Onitsuka Tiger Ultimate 81 are the bestsellers now. We look for healthier life style, and then we need positive sports. At this time, the best asics gel running shoes are needed for everybody. Tokidoki Onitsuka tiger shoes are very popular by more and more people now. asics gel running shoe
Dear Sheilar,
referring the latest approved version of on board notation recommendations:
port A as required by the LC is shown as the port of loading in the combined transport B/L. So, the first leg starts from a seaport (port A). There must be a dated on board notation. (without necessarily showing the Ocean vessel name and port of loading port A).
Since the B/L pre-printed shipped on board, the date of issue is deemed to be the date of shipment, no further dated on board notation is required.
New on board notation recommendation:
5 (b) where the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt that is different from the port of loading i.e., place of receipt Amsterdam and port of loading Rotterdam BUT there is NO indication of a means of pre-carriage (either in the pre-carriage field or the place of receipt field) then:
(i) if the bill of lading is pre-printed shipped on board, the date of issue will be deemed to be the date of shipment and no further on board notation is required;
Please visits the below web link for complete details :
http://collyerconsulting.com/
Regards,
KS
Dear KS /UCP800 (really an impressive name!)
Thank you for your links and your quotation.
I also agree with you that no need for further notation (in case of bill of lading).
But for a MMTD, I still need some time to think of it.
Best regards
Sheilar
Not necessary as the BL already has a notation, assuming that there is no other contra indication in any other document.
CVRK
An exbanker, into education now! ( can undertake select syndication)
Thank you for your comment.
Yes, I agree that "shipped on board" is some kind of on-board-notation.
But do you think whether this MMTD need to add further information such as the name of vessel and the port of loading subject to the latest ICC Recommendation Paper for on-board-notation?
Thank you
Sheilar
Hi Sheilar
The first leg of the journey as required by the LC is by sea and a MTD is called for.
The presented MTD evidences a place of receipt different to the LC stipulated port of loading. Therefore, even in the absence of any indication of pre-carriage, an indication that the goods have been loaded on-board a named vessel on a specific date at the LC stipulated port of loading is required. This would be required in the form of a dated on-board notation indicating vessel name and port of loading (as stated in the LC), unless it is clear from the MTD that either the on-board notation or pre-printed on-board wording applies to the named vessel and port of loading.
The question for you is whether the pre-printed on-board wording can only refer to the vessel and port of loading as evidenced on the MTD. Since you state that the MTD does not evidence any pre-carriage, and therefore no indication of any other vessel, there should be no doubt that the on board wording is to apply to the sole vessel as stated on the MTD.
Therefore, my view is that a separate on-board notation is not required in this case.
Hi Abrar
Personally, I fully agree with you! But not sure whether ICC agree with us.
As per the ICC Recommendation Paper, if a LC requires a MMTD with the 1st leg by sea , the presented document should be evidenced with on-board-notation which should indicate the consignment have been loaded on board a named vessel on a specific date at the LC stipulated port, “unless the transport document evidences that the on board notation or pre-printed shipped on board wording applies to the named vessel and port of loading”(P8 the section of Multimodal or Combined Transport Documents).
My question is whether the preprinted wording “shipped on board in apparent good order…”shown on a MMTD where there is a place of receipt which is different from the LC stipulated port of loading but without any indication of pre-carriage could be inferred to mean on board the named vessel and port of loading so that we do not need to add further particulars like port of loading and the named vessel besides the preprinted wording?
If this is a case for a bill of lading, I’m sure the answer is “Yes”, since 2.9 of the ICC Recommendation Paper states that “If the bill of lading only shows a place of receipt, with no reference to the means of pre-carriage, in the pre-carriage or place of receipt fields, an on board notation, or pre-printed wording to that effect can only be seen to apply to the named vessel and port of loading.” But what if it is a required MMTD? What is the ICC stand on this issue? I can see that the Recommendation Paper has clearly declared that for sea waybill and charter party bill of lading, there is some position as for bills of lading. But I wonder why the Recommendation Paper does not say so for a MMTD? Does this mean ICC has a different stand on a MMTD?
Of course, I fail to see why MMTD should be different (under that same condition).
Thanks and best regards
Sheilar
I wonder whether the omission of reference to a means of pre-carriage in the section relating to MTD, might have been an inadvertent oversight by the drafters of the guidance paper?
Dear Abrar,
I hope you are right. Before we know why, we have to treat it as “an inadvertent oversight".
But I've also heard of another opinion that it should be different "due to the nature of MMTD".
Just wonder why the guidance paper (for the section of MMTD ) still includes a vague exception condition like "unless the transport document evidences that the on board notation or pre-printed shipped on board wording applies to the named vessel and port of loading". Then we may question what can satisfy the exception condition of "unless .....". Actually, one can get lost in the wording of "unless ..."
Best regards
Sheilar
As per the ICC guidance paper, the MTD would only require a separate on-board notation if there was a doubt as to which vessel, or port of loading the pre-printed on-board wording was referring to. In the specific case, my view is that since there is no mention of a pre-carriage vessel, it ought to be safely interpreted that the pre-printed wording refers to the named vessel at the named port of loading. Also worth noting that if the place of receipt happens to be an inland point, there should also be no doubt that the on-board wording refers to the vessel at the port of loading. In my view, the MTD would therefore be compliant, and in line with the guidance paper.
Recent comments
34 min 53 sec ago
1 hour 8 min ago
1 day 6 hours ago
2 days 1 hour ago
3 days 2 hours ago
3 days 2 hours ago
3 days 7 hours ago
4 days 13 hours ago
4 days 15 hours ago
5 days 1 hour ago