Letter of Credit Forum

hay friend 

almost loans to u.

Normally we ship cargo and Bill of Lading fall under article 20 of UCP,
now which article of UCP applied for and what is defination of Trough
Bill of Lading.

regards,

phe9oxis,

http://www.guidebuddha.com

Whilst fully endorsing Phill's comments regarding the drafting of the LC requirement and on the cautionary comments on the subject of Through B/Ls in general, Art 20 may not be an automatic choice to determine compliance. Even though the article refers to "a bill of lading however named..", it would only apply where the LC calls for a B/L indicating port to port marine shipment. For example, a combined transport bill of lading would be required to be examined under Art. 19 and the "however named" would be understood to be relevant only for B/Ls under sole marine shipment.

It is the form and content of the document which would dictate which of the rules is to apply. In your case, one would first have to consider first, what the LC stipulates as regards taking in charge/loading port and port of discharge/final destinantion, and also what the Through B/L evidences. If it is evident that the Through B/L is serving the purpose of a combined transport document, i.e evidencing carriage by more than one mode of transport, the document would have to be examined under Art. 19, regardless of how the document was entitled.

Hello
I do not think, in the context of the credit, that a ‘through’ bill of lading has any measure: so I believe it falls until Article 20 (a) –  'however named'
Secondly, as the bank must ignore what cannot be measured by paper alone, the terms “actually shipped” and ‘clean’ are both irrelevant. I think too, that a bank cannot take the burden of verifying that the issuing carrier is ‘recognised in the trade route’. What on earth could they mean by ‘recognised’?
So, what I think you have is a clause calling for an on-board bill of lading.

A through bill of lading has a measure outside of the credit. It is where an operation is being undertaken under the one carrier’s document, but involving other carrier’s in its physical execution. Where this differs from a combined transport or multi-modal operation is that under the ‘through’ bill, the issuing carrier’s liability is limited to that offered by the sub-contracting carriers and not as per the issuing carrier’s terms and conditions of carriage i.e. a claim against the carrier is limited to the liability offered by the sub-contractor (under whose care the goods were at the time of the claim arising). In a combined transport or multi modal bill, a claim against the issuing carrier is limited to that carrier’s limitation of liability, regardless of whose care the goods were in at the time of the claim.
As with many things in trade, this distinction is often overlooked, ignored or unknown and it is common for people to incorrectly use ‘thorough’ when they mean ‘combined’ or ‘multi-modal’ (and I believe the ICC are about to confuse the issue further, introducing the coined word ‘omni-modal’)

I hope this helps you...others will add further and correct as necessary I am sure...
cheers

phill doran

 ...thus: another step on the road to mercantile enlightenment...