B/L Showing Port Of Discharge Not As LC Requirement

The forum is dedicated to all who deals with LCs. Please share your experiences, problems and opinions with us. You are requested to be confined to LC related issues only. Let us together discover the beauty of Letter of Credit. Thank and regards – admin; besttradesolution.com
Post Reply
LOAN
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:33 pm
First Name: LUCIA
Last Name: FRANCIS
Organization: D BANK
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: VIETNAM

B/L Showing Port Of Discharge Not As LC Requirement

Post by LOAN » Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:13 pm

Dear Forumer,

Pls share your opinion on the following case.
LC required “Marine B/L made out to the order of issuing bank and marked freight prepaid”.
F44E: any port in USA
F44F: Busan port, S.Korea

Docs presented as follows:
B/L shows:
Port of discharge: Incheon
Place of delivery: Busan port
No notation be indicated.

The discrepancy “B/L showing port of discharge not as LC
requirement”. Is it valid?
Thks for posting.

User avatar
picant
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm

Ehm......

Post by picant » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:50 am

Hi Pal,

if the discrepancy refers to the missing name of Country S. Korea, the bank who send the message
is wrong. There is an specific opinion, but all is in ISBP 745 para. E9:
"A bill of lading is to indicate the port of discharge stated in the credit.When a credit indicates the port of discharge by also stating the country in which the port is located, the name of the country need not be stated"

Contact this bank and inform about novelties(2013)
Ciao

cristiand969
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
First Name: Cristian
Last Name: D.
Organization: Bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: RO

It is a discrepancy

Post by cristiand969 » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:51 am

The port of discharge is not the one required by the credit!

User avatar
picant
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:49 pm

So...

Post by picant » Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:11 am

Hi Pal,

so it is applicable ISBP 745 para E 8:
Ciao

cristiand969
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:52 pm
First Name: Cristian
Last Name: D.
Organization: Bank
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: RO

well..

Post by cristiand969 » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:30 am

in this case I guess not.. this is because the discharge port is declared as Incheon and on the other hand there is no indication as provided under E8, namely the port of discharge is that stated under heading "place of final destination".

Fajar
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:38 am
First Name: Fajar
Last Name: Manggala
Organization: Bank Sinarmas
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: jakarta

Need another notation

Post by Fajar » Wed Aug 16, 2017 10:14 am

Is it any other notation on the body of Bill of Lading evidencing that the port of discharge is stated under place of final destination, or for example, "port of discharge Busan port,S. korea?"

if there is any evidence, then the BL is comply with LC terms, if there is not any evidence, it is discrepant

LOAN
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:33 pm
First Name: LUCIA
Last Name: FRANCIS
Organization: D BANK
Filter: Two Plus Two =: 4
Location: VIETNAM

Post by LOAN » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:19 am

The problem is that L/C requires Port of discharge (F.44F): Busan but docs presented with Port of discharge as INCHEON at the printed field.

This B/L should have a notation on it.

Post Reply