Page 1 of 1
LC Requires Air Waybill Issued 'To Order'
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:41 pm
We have request from our client to require awb under l/c documents which should be consigned 'to order' without mentioning the name of consignee. Is it possible to issue such awb? To whom would air company than deliver the goods?
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:24 pm
I don't know how it actually works this but to give you a clue , you may want to know that the 3rd revised draft for the new ISBP states that when there is a requirement of 'TO ORDER' as consignee, the AWB may indicate either the issuing bank or the applicant as consignee without the need of stating 'to order'. This would give me a reason to assume that in such situation, the goods can be delivered either to issuing bank or to applicant.
document of title
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:44 pm
As AWB is not a document of title to the goods, it could not be issued "To order". It must have a definite name of the consignee.
waybill to order
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:23 am
The question is really in two parts;
1. Can an AWB be consigned to order and
2. Can an AWB function if consigned to order.
The first part: “Yes”, an airwaybill may be consigned to order in that there is nothing to prohibit such a document.
The second part: could such an AWB serve a purpose, could it function? The answer is “no” it would be a completely useless document (well, OK, you could decorate the baby’s room with it, so it isn’t completely useless – actually, you could decorate the baby with it too...so it’s multi-functional)
When bankers' drafts or bills of exchange under a credit etc, are involved, it is common for the AWB to be consigned directly to the bank rather than the applicant, but this is only to place the bank between the applicant and the cargo – it confers no ‘title’ to the AWB and the ‘release letter’ is really a corruption introduced to compensate for the fact that the credit concept predates AWB’s and was developed with seafreight (and bills of lading) in mind.
On a more practical note, while I cannot speak for every carrier, I doubt if the carrier would willingly co-operate and cut such an AWB (but as I say, if they were prepared to do it, there is nothing ‘illegal’ about it).
If you are able to advise the client, advise them against the proposal.
"In the kingdom of the blind, what you see is what you get"
AWB issued to order
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:37 am
In my opinion, Air Way Bill consigned "to the order" is not a problem. If a bank issues AWB with the notation "to the order" it simply means lack of proper knowledge on part of bank employee. However the document may or may not contain "to the order" and shall not be treated as discrepancy.
But the problem is the name of the consignee. The applicant does not want you to write the name of the consignee in AWB. This is not possible. How can a shipper send the goods when there is no receiving end? May be the applicant do not have proper knowledge about the type of document and significance of writing the name of consignee in AWB. You ought to make further questions to the applicant regarding their intention for not writing consignee name in AWB.
Other Comments Appreciated.
If you are preparing for CDCS exam, please kindly send some practice test questions and answer at firstname.lastname@example.org
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:20 pm
Below you can find the respected articles from ISBP 745.
- When a credit requires an air transport document to evidence that goods are consigned “to order of (named entity)”, it may indicate that the goods are consigned to that entity, without mentioning “to order of”.
- When a credit requires an air transport document to evidence that goods are consigned “to order” without naming the entity to whose order the goods are to be consigned, it is to indicate that the goods are consigned to either the issuing bank or the applicant, without the need to mention the words “to order”.
http://store.iccwbo.org/international-s ... practice-3
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:26 am
AWB could not be issued "to the order" being declared by the issuer "not negotiable"!
Other comments appreciated