B/L Doesn’t Show Port Of Discharge & Loading On Notation

[dua]

I am the new member!
I want to ask something about bill of lading
I work for int'l payment dept so it relates to L/c so much.
We have received the announcement for refusing due to discrepancies' b/l after sending biils to claim.
- on the face of B/l as following:
port of pre-carrage: X port of receipt: Y
m/v: A
m/v: B Voyage: N089 port of loading: W
port of discharge: Z port of delivery: K
- L/c stipulate: 44e: W
44f: K
But "on board" notation: laden on board
the vessel
31 oct 2008
these: discrepancies: not show actually port of discharge and port of loading on notation
Pls explain to me about those discrepancies.
are they true?
thanks too much!

[shahriar]

dear dua,

thanks for your post and welcome to the forum. i preassume that you presented the document under UCPDC 600; otherwise there would have been no question of discrepancies. anyway, the requirement of UCP 600 in this regard is

ii. indicate that the goods have been shipped on board a named vessel at the port of loading stated in the credit by:
• pre-printed wording; or
• an on board notation indicating the date on which the goods have been shipped on board.

now your case

port of pre-carriage: X
port of receipt: Y
m/v: A
m/v: B Voyage: N089
port of loading: W
port of discharge: Z
port of delivery: K

L/c stipulate:
44e: W, 44f: K

But "on board" notation: laden on board the vessel, 31 oct 2008

now, come back to the requirement. "shipped on board on a named vessel at the port of loading". that means the name of the vessel must be related to the port of loading. but here is two master vessel and therefore its not clear that which ship actually started from the port of loading W. if there was only one master vessel, even the requirement would be same because of the same reason.

about your discrepancies

not show actually port of discharge and port of loading on notation

first of all, there is no need to show the port of discharge on an on board notation. doesnt make any sense infact. because the port of discharge can never be so certain since its a future case.

however here the port of discharged is actually shown on the place of delivery. this is not a discrepancy

about the port of loading, the bank is correct. but not entirely. the exact requirement in this case is

"shipped on board on a named vessel at the port of lading on dd-mm-yyyy"

regd

shahriar

[dua]

thanks so much!

[cristiand969]

If your B/L is marked:
'laden on board m/v: B, at W, 31 oct 2008' the document is conform provided otherwise complies with LC terms and conditions and UCP600.
regards
Cristian

[shahriar]

dear cristain,

i think the name of the port of loading must be mentioned in this case. please check ICC opinion R350 and R352 and let me have your opinion

regd

shahriar

[nesarul]

Dear Shahriar,
thnaks for quoting rightly one of the superb ICC official opinion.
Can you explain:the following ISBP paragraph:
99. While the named port of discharge, as required by the credit, should appear in the port of discharge field within the bill of lading,
Specially the following
it may be stated in the field headed "Place of final destination" or the like if it is clear that the goods were to be transported to that place of final destination by vessel and provided there is a notation evidencing that the port of discharge is that stated under "Place of final destination" or like term. [emphasis added]
regards
nesar

[jmitra]

dear nesar,

will you mind if i try?

the paragraph is saying the situation where a BL has been asked by the LC but the port of discharge is a inland water port. i hope u understand the rest.

regards

[nesarul]

Dear Mitra,
I simply don't understand why matter of doing mind has been come into existance.
.
anyway, then how will you execute it:
Extracting from ISBP same paragraph:
provided there is a notation evidencing that the port of discharge is that stated under "Place of final destination"
regards
nesar

[cristiand969]

Dear Shahriar,
Sorry for not replying immediately as I was few days on my holiday.
Well, my opinion at your posting is the following: you do not pay too much attention when reading my posting as the port of loading was dully stated as 'W' according to the original query. And as a matter of fact such issues existed also under previous UCP which I am well aware of.
best regards
cristian

[shahriar]

:oops: seems i actually didnt pay much attention. sorry for that post

regd

shahriar