I would submit to you the following case:
The issuing bank issued a letter of credit requiring a bill of lading as follows:
'A bill of lading to the order of the negotiating bank and endorsed to the l/c opening bank...'.
When issuing bank received bill of lading it endorsed bill of lading marking it as follows:
'please deliver to (applicant name). The (issuing bank name), as simple delivering agent of the present document (b/l), fully attests to decline all responsibility regarding the goods in question.'
I would know what are the responsility of the issuing bank endorsing a bill of lading and what is the legal consequencies of an endorsement as above mentioned.
Thanks to you all for your cooperation.
In your place I would ask issuing bank why they didn't endorse the B/l as usual.
This endorsement is unknown to me. Maybe the issuing bank wishes to make clear that they do not wish to bear any costs like port of destination THCs?!
-Each long journey starts with a small step-
This endorsement clause is very old, I found it when joined my bank in 1974: Probably was an indication by Associazione Bancaria Italiana in order to repeat that banks have no liabilities as per art 34 UCP 600. Wording is:
"E per noi consegnate a ........................................
La banca agendo come semplice trasmettitie del presente documeno diciara ad abbondanza che declina verso i portatori dello stesso ogni responsabilità circa le merci in esso documento indicate.
(Timbro e firma della banca)
The translation is similar to the one provided by Donat.
what you say is right. So i suppose that this kind of endorsement is not in use any more.
the endorsement is still in use, you will find a stamp on the desk of the "Ufficio estero-merci" of any bank in Italy.
Ask your bank for details.
Many thanks Frammi.
I believe that the issuing bank wants to avoid responsibilities about the goods so that the applicant can ask to issuing bank, as last endorser, for claim.
Let me to put some kopeks into this deal :)))
And let me try to look onto endorsement of Bs/L from other point of view. Such a point of view is not hypotetical (one may try to think). I reffer to views of our collegues (bank working specialists) at our local LC forum and Russian speaking people may read this discussion here http://dom.bankir.ru/showthread.php?t=37489&page=33 and onward.
Inspite of widely, commonly and perfectly used endorsement of Bs/L may lead to some difficulties and problems due to local legislation because of disconnection between marine and juridicial sence of endorsement as for local legislation.
If to look into marine sense of endorsement then endorsement is just passing of the rights to the next party. Noone is care at the end whether or not consequent endorsers (last receiver) were having contractual relations or not, whether they've paid each other for the goods or not. The only what is important is uninterrupted sequence of consequent endorsements. That's all.
What was noticed by our collegues as per local legislation.
What is endorsement meaning? - Passing of the rights for the goods.
How You may prove Your rights for the goods You've passed?
Only, if there is contract under which these rights has been passed to You.
But the bank actually is not involved into contractual obligations neither in buying of the goods (taking rights onto his side) nor selling of the same (passing the rights to third part).
So, the bank's rights are actually not existing and it's impossible to him to pass something he doesn't have and so perform juridicially right actions.
If the bank makes endorsement, so this mens that he was having the rights on the goods with all consequent questions on his side from authorities.
That's why local banks there are strictly refusing to have Bs/L issued or endorsed TO THEIR ORDER.
Maybe Your banks in addition mean the same too - they are just delivering agents (party which has got papers and delivered them to next party) without dealing with the goods under Bs/L, possessing, buying, selling them etc.
In some countries is current practise to require issue of L/C stating that is required 'bs/l issued to the order of negotiating bank (presenting bank) endorsed to issuing bank. So, despite reference of the issuing bank to refuse to issue bs/l endorsed TO THEIR ORDER, to be not involved into any contractual obligations, the issuing bank risks to be obliged to taken up responsibility about goods. So the bank is led on to remark art. 34 UCP 600 considering itself like just a delivering agents. But to me this practise leads to 'clear out' of sense to endorsement.
Am i right. Ciao.