FBL presented I/O ocean B/L, is it a discrepancy?
Hello everybody
L/C calls for presentaion of an Ocean B/L. However, a FBL has been presented. Is it a discrepancy?
I am assuming you are referring to a FIATA B/L.
It would be acceptable, provided the conditions under either Art 19 or Art. 20 ( as relevant) are met.
Under earlier UCP provisions (400), FIATA B/Ls were the only type of Freight Forwarders B/Ls which were acceptable. Since then, it has been recognised that the title of the document is less important than the form and function of the document; that it must fulfil the function of a carrier dcoument (signed as carrier or by agent of an identified carrier, with a binding contract of carriage from designated taking in charge/loading point to discharge point). Thus there is no longer any reference to Freight Forwarder, or FIATA B/Ls in UCP600.
In the case above, the document must evidence solely marine transport, i,e a port-to-port B/L.
Dear Abrar ! I´d like to know Your appreciated comment now: FBL showing an inland place of receipt (A-village), P/Loading as per L/C terms: B-City, P/Discharge as per L/C: C-Town. L/C stipulates a "normal" Marine Bill of Lading, no indication of a combined transport document, no details in field 44A given. Do You think it is necessary to indicate in FBL, how the goods came from A-Village to P/Loading B-City by what kind of transport means (i.e. truck/rail/barge or in combination or each single step goods took en route to P/Loading) ? Rgds Kurt.
Hi Kurt
I would say no. In stipulating only a port of loading, and a port of discharge, the LC is consistent with the requirement in calling for a marine B/L, i.e a port-to-port B/L. Even if pre-carriage details are absent, the carrier's contract of carriage from B to C is still intact, and meets LC requirements.
A FBL which has been issued and signed in accordance with Art. 20 would be acceptable, and at a minimum should evidence the port of loading and the port of discharge as stated in the LC. This it does.
You don't indicate whether the FBL is a "received for shipment" or "shipped on board" B/L, but in the event of the details of pre-carriage being absent, the normal rules regarding a dated "on board" notation is required for "received for shipment" B/Ls.
If the pre-carriage details had been completed, a separate "on board" notation indicating vessel name at port of loading would have been required; whether or not the B/L was a "received for shipment" or "shipped on board" B/L.
Had the FBL shown B as place of receipt (from MT Field 44E) and a different port of loading, then regardless of whether the B/L is a "received for shipment" or "shipped on board" a separate dated "on board" notation would have been required indicating vessel name at point B. Para. 98 of ISBP clarifies this further
Dear Abrar ! Thanks for Your comment. Now the layout of the standard FBL formular here in Germany indicates that the document is "issued subject to UNCTAD/ICC rules for Multimodal Transport Documents (ICC Publ. 481)" and shows the following line: "Taken in charge in apparent good order and condition unless otherwise noted herein, at the place of receipt for transport and delivery as mentioned above". Carrier superimposed a shipped on board remark with vessels name, P/Loading and date, everybody expects for a correct document under L/C views. Rgds Kurt. NB: I remember You visit ICC meeting this weekend in Bruxelles. Have some nice days in Europe.
Hi Kurt
Yes. The above would comply with LC requirements.
At the ICC meeting, a guidance paper on "on board" notations wil be voted on and hopefully ratified. It is likely to give a much clearer guidance to document checkers, through the use of a flowchart process, indicating notation requirements for all possible scenarios.
I shall try to disseminate the key points on my return.
Hi Friend,
assuming that Fiata Bill of lading is acceptable for all other data, if states place of receipt without indicating "means of precarriage" and a different port of loading, must be accepted too, provide a pre printed a separate on board duly dated. IMHO this was the first conclusion of working group in june 2007, changed in a further ICC publ. 601 after many comments and claims by banks and document checker(famous the comment to DCPro forum by G. Collyer). I heard about a probably ICC position paper(or the like) on this issue.
Other comments appreciated
Ciao
Shek,
UCP, all the transport articles start with "however named",
That means it can be titled however, but the content should meet all the requirement of L/C.
Regards!!!!
Mujeeb :-)
Recent comments
1 hour 34 min ago
2 hours 8 min ago
1 day 7 hours ago
2 days 2 hours ago
3 days 3 hours ago
3 days 3 hours ago
3 days 8 hours ago
4 days 14 hours ago
4 days 16 hours ago
5 days 2 hours ago